Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) vs Quadro FX 2500M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 2500M with Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L), including specs and performance data.

FX 2500M
2005, $100
512 MB GDDR3, 45 Watt
0.52

R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) outperforms 2500M by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking12891265
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.89no data
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)GCN 1.1 (2014)
GPU code nameG71Beema/Mullins
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date29 September 2005 (20 years ago)29 April 2014 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores32128
Core clock speed500 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed500 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors278 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology90 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Wattno data
Texture fill rate12.00no data
ROPs16no data
TMUs24no 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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-IIIno 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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount512 MBno data
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth38.4 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model3.0no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/A-

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%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 27−30
−3.7%
27−30
+3.7%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−11.8%
18−20
+11.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 27−30
−3.7%
27−30
+3.7%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 27−30
−3.7%
27−30
+3.7%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 1−2

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

Full HD
High

Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Ultra

Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) performs better in 11 tests (41%)
  • there's a draw in 16 tests (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.52 0.61
Recency 29 September 2005 29 April 2014
Chip lithography 90 nm 28 nm

R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) has a 17% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 221% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 2500M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.6 5 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 5 votes

Rate Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 2500M or Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.