Quadro NVS 160M vs Radeon RX Vega 64

Place in the ranking	129	1289
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	22.62	no data
Power efficiency	8.61	2.00
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Vega 10	G98
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	7 August 2017 (7 years ago)	15 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$499	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 cores	4096	8
Core clock speed	1247 MHz	580 MHz
Boost clock speed	1546 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	12,500 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	295 Watt	12 Watt
Texture fill rate	395.8	4.640
Floating-point processing power	12.66 TFLOPS	0.0232 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	4
TMUs	256	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	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-I
Length	279 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 8-pin	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	HBM2	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	945 MHz	700 MHz
Memory bandwidth	483.8 GB/s	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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.125	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. 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.

RX Vega 64 37.05
+10486%

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.

RX Vega 64 14275
+10474%

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.

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	118 +11700%	1−2 −11700%
1440p	78	0−1
4K	51	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.23	no data
1440p	6.40	no data
4K	9.78	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

65−70
+3150%

2−3

−3150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	81 +2600%	3−4 −2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	83	0−1
Battlefield 5	186 +18500%	1−2 −18500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	68 +3300%	2−3 −3300%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
Far Cry 5	112 +11100%	1−2 −11100%
Far Cry New Dawn	108 +10700%	1−2 −10700%
Forza Horizon 4	321 +10600%	3−4 −10600%
Hitman 3	84 +2000%	4−5 −2000%
Horizon Zero Dawn	315 +3838%	8−9 −3838%
Metro Exodus	144 +14300%	1−2 −14300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	116 +11500%	1−2 −11500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	178 +4350%	4−5 −4350%
Watch Dogs: Legion	261 +832%	27−30 −832%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	158 +5167%	3−4 −5167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	69	0−1
Battlefield 5	170 +16900%	1−2 −16900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
Far Cry 5	86	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	93	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	294 +14600%	2−3 −14600%
Hitman 3	81 +1925%	4−5 −1925%
Horizon Zero Dawn	293 +3563%	8−9 −3563%
Metro Exodus	132 +13100%	1−2 −13100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	96	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	164 +4000%	4−5 −4000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80 +756%	9−10 −756%
Watch Dogs: Legion	247 +782%	27−30 −782%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	51 +1600%	3−4 −1600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	60	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	54 +2600%	2−3 −2600%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +3150%	2−3 −3150%
Far Cry 5	67	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	128 +12700%	1−2 −12700%
Hitman 3	73 +1725%	4−5 −1725%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +1150%	8−9 −1150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	143 +3475%	4−5 −3475%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	77 +756%	9−10 −756%
Watch Dogs: Legion	54 +92.9%	27−30 −92.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	47	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30	0−1
Far Cry 5	40−45	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	210−220 +21000%	1−2 −21000%
Hitman 3	50 +733%	6−7 −733%
Horizon Zero Dawn	80 +3900%	2−3 −3900%
Metro Exodus	79	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	243 +12050%	2−3 −12050%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

62
+3000%

2−3

−3000%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	59	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	36	0−1
Hitman 3	38	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	102	0−1
Metro Exodus	52	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	48	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	29 +2800%	1−2 −2800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	28	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	25	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14	0−1
Far Cry 5	27	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	66	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	59	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	21	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

31
+1450%

2−3

−1450%

This is how RX Vega 64 and NVS 160M compete in popular games:

RX Vega 64 is 11700% faster in 1080p

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

in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 64 is 5167% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RX Vega 64 surpassed NVS 160M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	37.05	0.35
Recency	7 August 2017	15 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	295 Watt	12 Watt

RX Vega 64 has a 10485.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 160M, on the other hand, has 2358.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 160M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 64 is a desktop 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.