Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile vs Quadro FX 2500M

Place in the ranking	1224	218
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	0.87	22.68
Architecture	Curie (2003−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	G71	TU106
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	29 September 2005 (19 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99.99	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	32	2304
Core clock speed	500 MHz	945 MHz
Boost clock speed	500 MHz	1380 MHz
Number of transistors	278 million	10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	90 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.00	198.7
Floating-point processing power	no data	6.359 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	24	144
Tensor Cores	no data	288
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	36

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	large	large
Interface	MXM-III	PCIe 3.0 x16

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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	600 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	38.4 GB/s	448.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
G-SYNC support	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Ready

no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	9.0c (9_3)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	3.0	6.5
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	-	7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FX 2500M 0.56

RTX 3000 Mobile 26.07
+4555%

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.

FX 2500M 217

RTX 3000 Mobile 10116
+4562%

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	2−3 −5050%	103 +5050%
4K	1−2 −8700%	88 +8700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	50.00	no data
4K	99.99	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −345%	45−50 +345%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1700%	50−55 +1700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −345%	45−50 +345%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1700%	50−55 +1700%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1850%	110−120 +1850%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −1040%	55−60 +1040%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −345%	45−50 +345%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1700%	50−55 +1700%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −975%	86 +975%
Fortnite	0−1	130−140
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1850%	110−120 +1850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −1275%	110 +1275%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −1040%	55−60 +1040%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −1620%	85−90 +1620%
World of Tanks	16−18 −1447%	260−270 +1447%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −345%	45−50 +345%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1700%	50−55 +1700%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −888%	75−80 +888%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1850%	110−120 +1850%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −1925%	160−170 +1925%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −767%	24−27 +767%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −4133%	120−130 +4133%
World of Tanks	1−2 −17200%	170−180 +17200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −667%	21−24 +667%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1850%	75−80 +1850%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Valorant	5−6 −1340%	70−75 +1340%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −207%	45−50 +207%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −207%	45−50 +207%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −8000%	80−85 +8000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −207%	45−50 +207%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	27−30
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Dota 2	14−16 −487%	88 +487%
Valorant	1−2 −3400%	35−40 +3400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Metro Exodus	91 +0%	91 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Dota 2	44 +0%	44 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	43 +0%	43 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Dota 2	121 +0%	121 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Fortnite	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

This is how FX 2500M and RTX 3000 Mobile compete in popular games:

RTX 3000 Mobile is 5050% faster in 1080p
RTX 3000 Mobile is 8700% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3000 Mobile is 17200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX 3000 Mobile is ahead in 33 tests (53%)
there's a draw in 29 tests (47%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.56	26.07
Recency	29 September 2005	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Chip lithography	90 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	80 Watt

FX 2500M has 77.8% lower power consumption.

RTX 3000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 4555.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.