Select any two GPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Mobility Radeon HD 4830 Quadro FX 1600M
Cyberpunk 2077 2190% 2721%
Halo: Reach 430% 553%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1567% 1954%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1567% 1954%
Doom Eternal 1333% 1666%
Dragon Ball Z Kakarot 928% 1167%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2190% 2721%
FIFA 20 788% 994%
Need For Speed Heat 1567% 1954%
Grand Theft Auto VI 2447% 3038%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the AMD Mobility Radeon HD 4830 are noticeably better than the Nvidia Quadro FX 1600M.

The Radeon HD has no core clock speed set, so any comparison between Texture and Pixel Fill Rates is not currently possible.

The Radeon HD was released over a year more recently than the Quadro FX 1600M, and so the Radeon HD is likely to have better driver support, meaning it will be more optimized for running the latest games when compared to the Quadro FX 1600M.

The Quadro FX 1600M has 512 MB video memory, but the Radeon HD does not have an entry, so the two GPUs cannot be reliably compared in this area.

Both the Mobility Radeon HD 4830 and the Quadro FX 1600M have 0 Shader Processing Units. The two GPUs are based on different architectures, but deliver an equivalent shader performance. To compare, we must continue to look at the memory bandwidth, Texture and Pixel Rates. In this case, we sadly do not have enough data in this area to complete the comparison.

The Quadro FX 1600M requires 50 Watts to run but there is no entry for the Radeon HD.

Game FPS Benchmarks On Ultra

GPU Architecture

Core Speed-vs625 MHz
Boost Clock-vs-
Architecture-G84M
OC Potential Fair vs -
Driver Support - vs -
Release Date03 Mar 2009vs01 Jun 2007
GPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved
Comparison

GPU Memory

Memory-vs512 MB
Memory Speed-vs800 MHz
Memory Bus-vs128 Bit
Memory Type-vsGDDR3
Memory Bandwidth-vs25.6GB/sec
L2 Cache - vs -
Delta Color Compression no vs no
Memory Performance 0% green tick vs green tick 0%
Comparison

GPU Display

Shader Processing Units-vs-
Actual Shader Performance-vs-
Technology-vs80nm
Texture Mapping Units-vs-
Texture Rate-vs-
Render Output Units-vs-
Pixel Rate-vs-
Comparison

GPU Outputs

Max Digital Resolution (WxH)2560x1600vs2560x1600
VGA Connections0vs-
DVI Connections0vs-
HDMI Connections0vs-
DisplayPort Connections-vs-
Comparison

GPU Power Requirements

Max Power-50 Watts
Recommended PSU--

GPU Features

DirectX-vs10
Shader Model-vs4.0
Open GL-vs2.1
Open CL-vs-
Notebook GPUyesyes
SLI/Crossfirenovsno
Dedicatedyesvsyes
Comparison

GPU Supporting Hardware

Recommended Processor--
Recommended RAM--
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution--

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

GPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewThe Quadro line of GPU cards emerged in an effort at market segmentation by NVIDIA. In introducing Quadro, NVIDIA was able to charge a premium for essentially the same graphics hardware in professional markets, and direct resources to properly serve the needs of those markets. To differentiate their offerings, NVIDIA used driver software and firmware to enable features vital to segments of the workstation market; e.g., high performance anti-aliased lines and two-sided lighting were reserved for the Quadro product. In addition, improved support through a certified driver program was put in place. These features were of little value in the gaming markets that NVIDIA's products already sold to, but prevented high end customers from using the less expensive products. This practice continues even today although some products use higher capacity faster memory.
Recommended CPU
-
-
Possible GPU Upgrades
N/A
N/A
GPU Variants
-
-

Title

Body