Quadro FX 1600M vs GeForce 315
Quadro FX 1600M
Popular choices:
GeForce 315
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The Quadro FX 1600M is positioned at rank #298 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 1600M
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce 315 is significantly newer (2020 vs 2008). The GeForce 315 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 1600M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 315 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 1600M.
| Insight | Quadro FX 1600M | GeForce 315 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce 315 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro FX 1600M and GeForce 315
Quadro FX 1600M
The Quadro FX 1600M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 195 points. Launch price was $3,499.
GeForce 315
The GeForce 315 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 10 2020. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 747 MHz to 937 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 20W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 196 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 1600M scores 195 and the GeForce 315 reaches 196 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 1600M is built on Tesla 2.0 while the GeForce 315 uses Pascal, both on 55 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 1600M) vs 640 (GeForce 315). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 1600M) vs 1.199 TFLOPS (GeForce 315).
| Feature | Quadro FX 1600M | GeForce 315 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 195 | 196 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 640+167% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 1.199 TFLOPS+93% |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 80+150% | 32 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 1600M | GeForce 315 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (Quadro FX 1600M) vs 512 KB (GeForce 315) — the GeForce 315 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 1600M | GeForce 315 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 1600M draws 189W versus the GeForce 315's 20W — a 161.7% difference. The GeForce 315 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 1600M) vs 350W (GeForce 315). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.
| Feature | Quadro FX 1600M | GeForce 315 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 20W-89% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | — | 168mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 1.0 | 9.8+880% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 315 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 1600M | GeForce 315 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $0 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $0 |
| Codename | GT200B | GP107 |
| Release | November 11 2008 | February 10 2020 |
| Ranking | #815 | #597 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 1600M and GeForce 315
