Quadro FX 3500M vs Quadro P2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P2000 with Quadro FX 3500M, including specs and performance data.
P2000 outperforms 3500M by a whopping 2290% 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 | 355 | 1236 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.92 | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | 18.00 | 1.25 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | G71 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (9 years ago) | 1 March 2007 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $585 | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro P2000 has 3464% 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 | 1024 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1076 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 94.72 | 13.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.031 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 40 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1280 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 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-III |
| Length | 201 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 5 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 160 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 140.2 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 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 56
+2700%
| 2−3
−2700%
|
| 1440p | 20 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 16 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 10.45
+379%
| 50.00
−379%
|
| 1440p | 29.25 | no data |
| 4K | 36.56 | no data |
- Quadro P2000 has 379% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+2375%
|
4−5
−2375%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Palworld | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+2400%
|
3−4
−2400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+2375%
|
4−5
−2375%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 144
+2300%
|
6−7
−2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1360%
|
5−6
−1360%
|
| Palworld | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53
+563%
|
8−9
−563%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+372%
|
27−30
−372%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+2400%
|
3−4
−2400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+2375%
|
4−5
−2375%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+952%
|
21−24
−952%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+685%
|
12−14
−685%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 60
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1360%
|
5−6
−1360%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+3200%
|
2−3
−3200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41
+413%
|
8−9
−413%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+372%
|
27−30
−372%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+2400%
|
3−4
−2400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Dota 2 | 98
+654%
|
12−14
−654%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1360%
|
5−6
−1360%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+372%
|
27−30
−372%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
| Palworld | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+3125%
|
4−5
−3125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+1913%
|
8−9
−1913%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+2550%
|
6−7
−2550%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+2400%
|
2−3
−2400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+113%
|
14−16
−113%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 90−95
+1417%
|
6−7
−1417%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Palworld | 14−16 | 0−1 |
This is how Quadro P2000 and FX 3500M compete in popular games:
- Quadro P2000 is 2700% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 3700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P2000 surpassed FX 3500M in all 33 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.45 | 0.73 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 1 March 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 45 Watt |
Quadro P2000 has a 2290% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 463% more advanced lithography process.
FX 3500M, on the other hand, has 67% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P2000 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.
