Quadro FX 3500M vs FirePro W7000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W7000 with Quadro FX 3500M, including specs and performance data.
W7000 outperforms 3500M by a whopping 1321% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 490 | 1236 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.90 | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | 5.35 | 1.25 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | G71 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 13 June 2012 (14 years ago) | 1 March 2007 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $899 | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
FirePro W7000 has 718% better value for money than FX 3500M.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 950 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 76.00 | 13.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.432 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 80 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-III |
| Length | 242 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1200 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| DisplayPort count | 4 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 33 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.37 | 0.73 |
| Recency | 13 June 2012 | 1 March 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 45 Watt |
FirePro W7000 has a 1321% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221% more advanced lithography process.
FX 3500M, on the other hand, has 678% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W7000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W7000 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro FX 3500M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
