Select any two GPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Mobility Radeon HD 5470 512MB Quadro FX 1600M
Red Dead Redemption 2 2957% 1954%
Halo: Reach 871% 553%
Cyberpunk 2077 4100% 2721%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2957% 1954%
Doom Eternal 2529% 1666%
Microsoft Flight Simulator 4100% 2721%
Warcraft 3: Reforged 18% 21%
Grand Theft Auto VI 4571% 3038%
Star Wars: Jedi - Fallen Order 4100% 2721%
Dragon Ball Z Kakarot 1786% 1167%

In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the Nvidia Quadro FX 1600M are significantly better than the AMD Mobility Radeon HD 5470 512MB.

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 Mobility Radeon HD 5470 512MB and the Quadro FX 1600M have the same amount of video memory, but are likely to provide slightly different experiences when displaying game textures at high resolutions.

The Quadro FX 1600M has 12.8 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the Radeon HD, which means that the memory performance of the Quadro FX 1600M is slightly better than the Radeon HD.

The Radeon HD has 80 Shader Processing Units but the Quadro FX 1600M does not have an entry, so the two GPUs cannot be reliably compared in this area.

The Radeon HD transistor size technology is 40 nm (nanometers) smaller than the Quadro FX 1600M. This means that the Radeon HD is expected to run much cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the Quadro FX 1600M. While they exhibit similar graphical performance, the Radeon HD should consume less power than the Quadro FX 1600M.

The Mobility Radeon HD 5470 512MB requires 15 Watts to run and the Quadro FX 1600M requires 50 Watts. The Quadro FX 1600M requires 35 Watts more than the Radeon HD to run. The difference is significant enough that the Quadro FX 1600M may have a slight adverse affect on your yearly electricity bills in comparison to the Radeon HD.

Game FPS Benchmarks On Ultra

GPU Architecture

Core Speed750 MHzvs625 MHz
Boost Clock-vs-
ArchitecturePark XTG84M
OC Potential Fair vs -
Driver Support - vs -
Release Date07 Jan 2010vs01 Jun 2007
GPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved
Comparison

Resolution Performance

1366x768
3.5
green tick vs -
1600x900
2.3
green tick vs -
1920x1080
1.4
green tick vs -
2560x1440
1.1
green tick vs -
3840x2160
0.7
green tick vs -

GPU Memory

Memory512 MBvs512 MB
Memory Speed800 MHzvs800 MHz
Memory Bus64 Bitvs128 Bit
Memory TypeGDDR3vsGDDR3
Memory Bandwidth12.8GB/secvs25.6GB/sec
L2 Cache - vs -
Delta Color Compression no vs no
Memory Performance 0% green tick vs green tick 0%
Comparison

GPU Display

Shader Processing Units80vs-
Actual Shader Performance2%vs-
Technology40nmvs80nm
Texture Mapping Units8vs-
Texture Rate6 GTexel/svs-
Render Output Units4vs-
Pixel Rate3 GPixel/svs-
Comparison

GPU Outputs

Max Digital Resolution (WxH)2560x1600vs2560x1600
VGA Connections1vs-
DVI Connections0vs-
HDMI Connections1vs-
DisplayPort Connections-vs-
Comparison

GPU Power Requirements

Max Power15 Wattsvs50 Watts
Recommended PSU--

GPU Features

DirectX11vs10
Shader Model5.0vs4.0
Open GL4.0vs2.1
Open CL-vs-
Notebook GPUyesyes
SLI/Crossfirenovsno
Dedicatedyesvsyes
Comparison

GPU Supporting Hardware

Recommended ProcessorIntel Core i3-U330 1.2GHz-
Recommended RAM3 GB-
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution1024x768-

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

GPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewThis is the 512MB variant of the entry-level Mobility Radeon HD 5470 based on the 40nm, Terascale 2 architecture. Check the page of the original Mobility Radeon HD 5470 to know more about its core and specifications.
Despite the weak processing power of this GPU, it did benchmarks indicate it does benefit from a 1GB frame buffer in some modern demanding games, which may offer one or two extra frame rates. Therefore, this variant should be 1-3% worse.
The 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