Radeon RX 7700 XT vs Quadro NVS 160M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 160M with Radeon RX 7700 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 7700 XT outperforms NVS 160M by a whopping 15584% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1291 | 47 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 71.49 |
| Power efficiency | 2.12 | 16.32 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | G98 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2008 (16 years ago) | 25 August 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 3456 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 1435 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2544 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 245 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.640 | 549.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0232 TFLOPS | 35.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 96 |
| TMUs | 8 | 216 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 54 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | MXM-I | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 11.2 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 1−2
−18300%
| 184
+18300%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 102 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 59 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.44 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.40 |
| 4K | no data | 7.61 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−13150%
|
265
+13150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−19200%
|
193
+19200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−9850%
|
199
+9850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−15700%
|
158
+15700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−9167%
|
278
+9167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2429%
|
170−180
+2429%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−996%
|
290−300
+996%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−5850%
|
119
+5850%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1886%
|
270−280
+1886%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−13100%
|
132
+13100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−15400%
|
1550−1600
+15400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−8967%
|
272
+8967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2429%
|
170−180
+2429%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−7275%
|
295
+7275%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−996%
|
290−300
+996%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−12100%
|
122
+12100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−15400%
|
1550−1600
+15400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−7600%
|
231
+7600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2429%
|
170−180
+2429%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−4100%
|
168
+4100%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−996%
|
290−300
+996%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−5733%
|
170−180
+5733%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 80 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−19600%
|
197
+19600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 120 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 150−160 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−647%
|
112
+647%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−15300%
|
300−350
+15300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−8100%
|
82
+8100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4600%
|
90−95
+4600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 351
+0%
|
351
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 344
+0%
|
344
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 188
+0%
|
188
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 243
+0%
|
243
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 181
+0%
|
181
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 152
+0%
|
152
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 167
+0%
|
167
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 157
+0%
|
157
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
This is how NVS 160M and RX 7700 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 7700 XT is 18300% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 7700 XT is 19600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 7700 XT is ahead in 26 tests (46%)
- there's a draw in 31 test (54%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.32 | 50.19 |
| Recency | 15 August 2008 | 25 August 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 245 Watt |
NVS 160M has 1941.7% lower power consumption.
RX 7700 XT, on the other hand, has a 15584.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1200% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro NVS 160M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 7700 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
