Quadro NVS 160M vs Radeon RX Vega 11
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 11 with Quadro NVS 160M, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 11 outperforms NVS 160M by a whopping 1406% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 617 | 1288 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.81 | 2.09 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Raven | G98 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 10 May 2018 (6 years ago) | 15 August 2008 (16 years ago) |
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 | 704 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 580 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1251 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,940 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.04 | 4.640 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.761 TFLOPS | 0.0232 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 44 | 8 |
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 | IGP | MXM-I |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 11.2 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 Connectors | Motherboard Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 (6.4) | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/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.
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 | 28
+2700%
| 1−2
−2700%
|
| 1440p | 5 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 12 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 54
+671%
|
7−8
−671%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| World of Tanks | 85−90
+529%
|
14−16
−529%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+557%
|
7−8
−557%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
This is how RX Vega 11 and NVS 160M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 11 is 2700% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 11 is 1600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 11 is ahead in 30 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.27 | 0.35 |
| Recency | 10 May 2018 | 15 August 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 12 Watt |
RX Vega 11 has a 1405.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 160M, on the other hand, has 191.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 11 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 11 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 160M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
