CPU
GPU
Quadro FX 4000
Popular choices:
Radeon X1600 Pro
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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro FX 4000 is positioned at rank 423 and the Radeon X1600 Pro is on rank 342, so the Radeon X1600 Pro offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 4000
Performance Per Dollar Radeon X1600 Pro
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon X1600 Pro is significantly newer (2020 vs 2008). The Radeon X1600 Pro likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 4000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro FX 4000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon X1600 Pro offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro FX 4000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon X1600 Pro offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $49 versus $50 for the Quadro FX 4000, it costs 2% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 0% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 4000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+0%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) | ✅More affordable ($49) |
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.
Path of Exile 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro FX 4000 and Radeon X1600 Pro
Quadro FX 4000
The Quadro FX 4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 602 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 101 points. Launch price was $1,799.
Radeon X1600 Pro
The Radeon X1600 Pro is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 21 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1130 MHz to 1560 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 99 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 4000 scores 101 and the Radeon X1600 Pro reaches 99 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 4000 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Radeon X1600 Pro uses RDNA 1.0, both on 55 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro FX 4000) vs 2,048 (Radeon X1600 Pro). Raw compute: 0.4623 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 4000) vs 6.39 TFLOPS (Radeon X1600 Pro).
| Feature | Quadro FX 4000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 101+2% | 99 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 2048+967% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.4623 TFLOPS | 6.39 TFLOPS+1282% |
| ROPs | 24 | 64+167% |
| TMUs | 64 | 128+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.19 MB | 3 MB+1479% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 4000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro FX 4000 comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon X1600 Pro has 512 MB. The Radeon X1600 Pro offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.19 MB (Quadro FX 4000) vs 3 MB (Radeon X1600 Pro) — the Radeon X1600 Pro has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 4000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.19 MB | 3 MB+1479% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 4000 draws 150W versus the Radeon X1600 Pro's 150W — a 0% difference. The Radeon X1600 Pro is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 4000) vs 350W (Radeon X1600 Pro). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro FX 4000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 168mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.7 | 0.7 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 4000 launched at $2199 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the Radeon X1600 Pro launched at $149 and now averages $49. The Radeon X1600 Pro costs 2% less ($1 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 2.0 (Quadro FX 4000) vs 2.0 (Radeon X1600 Pro) — the Radeon X1600 Pro offers 0% better value. The Radeon X1600 Pro is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 4000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2199 | $149-93% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $49-2% |
| Performance per Dollar | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Codename | GT200B | Navi 10 |
| Release | November 11 2008 | January 21 2020 |
| Ranking | #884 | #216 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 4000 and Radeon X1600 Pro
