TITAN RTX vs Quadro FX 3000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3000 with TITAN RTX, including specs and performance data.

FX 3000
2003, $203
256 MB DDR
0.16

TITAN RTX outperforms FX 3000 by a whopping 27950% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking147191
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data6.56
Power efficiencyno data12.36
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameNV35TU102
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date22 July 2003 (22 years ago)18 December 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$203 $2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

FX 3000 and TITAN RTX have a nearly equal value for money.

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 coresno data4608
Core clock speed400 MHz1350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1770 MHz
Number of transistors135 million18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data280 Watt
Texture fill rate3.200509.8
Floating-point processing powerno data16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs496
TMUs8288
Tensor Coresno data576
Ray Tracing Coresno data72
L1 Cacheno data4.5 MB
L2 Cacheno data6 MB

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 3.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x Molex2x 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 MB24 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed425 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth27.2 GB/s672.0 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0a12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)4.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

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.

FX 3000 0.16
TITAN RTX 44.88
+27950%

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
Samples: 14
TITAN RTX 18858
+27230%
Samples: 253

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 HD0−1161
1440p-0−1102
4K-0−173

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data15.52
1440pno data24.50
4Kno data34.23

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 353
+0%
353
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 79
+0%
79
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 163
+0%
163
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 342
+0%
342
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 79
+0%
79
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 121
+0%
121
+0%
Far Cry 5 165
+0%
165
+0%
Fortnite 169
+0%
169
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 187
+0%
187
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 168
+0%
168
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 202
+0%
202
+0%
Valorant 348
+0%
348
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 164
+0%
164
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 270
+0%
270
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 79
+0%
79
+0%
Dota 2 155
+0%
155
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 120
+0%
120
+0%
Far Cry 5 156
+0%
156
+0%
Fortnite 176
+0%
176
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 186
+0%
186
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 153
+0%
153
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 152
+0%
152
+0%
Metro Exodus 134
+0%
134
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 163
+0%
163
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 267
+0%
267
+0%
Valorant 336
+0%
336
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160
+0%
160
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 78
+0%
78
+0%
Dota 2 148
+0%
148
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 119
+0%
119
+0%
Far Cry 5 146
+0%
146
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 175
+0%
175
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 136
+0%
136
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 139
+0%
139
+0%
Valorant 236
+0%
236
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 134
+0%
134
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 157
+0%
157
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 114
+0%
114
+0%
Metro Exodus 85
+0%
85
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 307
+0%
307
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 66
+0%
66
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 117
+0%
117
+0%
Far Cry 5 134
+0%
134
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 157
+0%
157
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 45
+0%
45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 134
+0%
134
+0%
Metro Exodus 55
+0%
55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 103
+0%
103
+0%
Valorant 300
+0%
300
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 97
+0%
97
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 33
+0%
33
+0%
Dota 2 146
+0%
146
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 82
+0%
82
+0%
Far Cry 5 80
+0%
80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 114
+0%
114
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 96
+0%
96
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 74
+0%
74
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.16 44.88
Recency 22 July 2003 18 December 2018
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 24 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 12 nm

TITAN RTX has a 27950% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 983.3% more advanced lithography process.

The TITAN RTX 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 TITAN RTX is a desktop one.

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
NVIDIA TITAN RTX
TITAN RTX

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
3.6 866 votes

Rate TITAN RTX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3000 or TITAN RTX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.