Radeon RX 6600 XT vs Quadro FX 3000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3000 with Radeon RX 6600 XT, including specs and performance data.

FX 3000
2003
256 MB DDR
0.18

RX 6600 XT outperforms FX 3000 by a whopping 23761% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking140788
Place by popularitynot in top-10079
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data62.48
Power efficiencyno data18.51
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameNV35Navi 23
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date22 July 2003 (21 year ago)30 July 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$203 $379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 3000 and RX 6600 XT have a nearly equal value for money.

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 coresno data2048
Core clock speed400 MHz1968 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2589 MHz
Number of transistors135 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data160 Watt
Texture fill rate3.200331.4
Floating-point processing powerno data10.6 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8128
Ray Tracing Coresno data32

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).

InterfaceAGP 8xPCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data190 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x Molex1x 8-pin

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 typeDDRGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed425 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth27.2 GB/s256.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0a12.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)4.6
OpenCLN/A2.1
VulkanN/A1.2

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 3000 0.18
RX 6600 XT 42.95
+23761%

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 3000 69
RX 6600 XT 16509
+23826%

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 HD0−1134
1440p-0−178
4K-0−144

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.83
1440pno data4.86
4Kno data8.61

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 120
+0%
120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 79
+0%
79
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75
+0%
75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 257
+0%
257
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 123
+0%
123
+0%
Metro Exodus 131
+0%
131
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75
+0%
75
+0%
Dota 2 147
+0%
147
+0%
Far Cry 5 65
+0%
65
+0%
Fortnite 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 209
+0%
209
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 115
+0%
115
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 135
+0%
135
+0%
Metro Exodus 100
+0%
100
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 67
+0%
67
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 66
+0%
66
+0%
Dota 2 120
+0%
120
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 183
+0%
183
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 97
+0%
97
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 68
+0%
68
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 68
+0%
68
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 39
+0%
39
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 38
+0%
38
+0%
Far Cry 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 118
+0%
118
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 71
+0%
71
+0%
Metro Exodus 98
+0%
98
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Dota 2 64
+0%
64
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 64
+0%
64
+0%
Metro Exodus 34
+0%
34
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+0%
64
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 86
+0%
86
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 61
+0%
61
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 36
+0%
36
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.18 42.95
Recency 22 July 2003 30 July 2021
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 7 nm

RX 6600 XT has a 23761.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 18 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1757.1% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6600 XT is a desktop one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 3000
Quadro FX 3000
AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT
Radeon RX 6600 XT

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.


3.8 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 4512 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6600 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.