Quadro NVS 160M vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with Quadro NVS 160M, including specs and performance data.

PRO WX 2100
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
4.78
+1266%

PRO WX 2100 outperforms NVS 160M by a whopping 1266% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking6431289
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.95no data
Power efficiency9.362.00
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameLexaG98
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date4 June 2017 (7 years ago)15 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores5128
Core clock speed925 MHz580 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,200 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt12 Watt
Texture fill rate39.014.640
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPS0.0232 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs328

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-I
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB256 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth48 GB/s11.2 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

PRO WX 2100 4.78
+1266%
NVS 160M 0.35

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.

PRO WX 2100 1841
+1264%
NVS 160M 135

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Battlefield 5 12−14 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Hitman 3 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+288%
8−9
−288%
Metro Exodus 10−12 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+60.7%
27−30
−60.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Battlefield 5 12−14 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Hitman 3 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+288%
8−9
−288%
Metro Exodus 10−12 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+60.7%
27−30
−60.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%
Hitman 3 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+288%
8−9
−288%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+60.7%
27−30
−60.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10 0−1
Hitman 3 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 450% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, PRO WX 2100 surpassed NVS 160M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.78 0.35
Recency 4 June 2017 15 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 12 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has a 1265.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 160M, on the other hand, has 191.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation card while Quadro NVS 160M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
Radeon PRO WX 2100
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 160M
Quadro NVS 160M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 50 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 23 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 160M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.