NVIDIA GeForce 920M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 1600M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 920M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 1600M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 920M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 7 year(s) 9 month(s) later
• Around 53% higher core clock speed: 954 MHz vs 625 MHz
• Around 24% higher texture fill rate: 12.4 GTexel / s vs 10 GTexel / s
• 12x more pipelines: 384 vs 32
• 3.7x better floating-point performance: 297.6 gflops vs 80 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 80 nm
• Around 52% lower typical power consumption: 33 Watt vs 50 Watt
• 8x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 512 MB
• Around 13% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz
• 5.5x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 722 vs 131
• Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 118 vs 109

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 920M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 1600M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	722 131
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	118 109

Compare specifications (specs)