Radeon Vega 7 vs Quadro FX 2500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2500M with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
Vega 7 outperforms 2500M by a whopping 1190% 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 | 1281 | 600 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 13 |
| Power efficiency | 0.89 | 11.45 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G71 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 September 2005 (20 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (4 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.
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 cores | 32 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 500 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 278 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 28 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-III | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
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 | 1−2
−2100%
| 22
+2100%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1300%
| 28
+1300%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−1700%
| 18
+1700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 99.99 | no data |
| 1440p | 50.00 | no data |
| 4K | 99.99 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−825%
|
37
+825%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−174%
|
70−75
+174%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−241%
|
58
+241%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−1173%
|
140−150
+1173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−775%
|
35
+775%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 13 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−188%
|
23
+188%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−260%
|
18
+260%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−170%
|
73
+170%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−1173%
|
140−150
+1173%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−575%
|
27
+575%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−160%
|
13
+160%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+8%
|
25
−8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−2500%
|
50−55
+2500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 14−16 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−733%
|
25
+733%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
This is how FX 2500M and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 2100% faster in 1080p
- Vega 7 is 1300% faster in 1440p
- Vega 7 is 1700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 2500M is 8% faster.
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Vega 7 is 2500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FX 2500M performs better in 1 test (2%)
- Vega 7 performs better in 25 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 31 tests (54%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.52 | 6.71 |
| Recency | 29 September 2005 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 7 nm |
Vega 7 has a 1190.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, and a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 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 Vega 7 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.
