GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile vs Quadro FX 3500

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3500 with GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

FX 3500
2006, $1,599
256 MB GDDR3, 80 Watt
0.63

RTX 3070 Mobile outperforms FX 3500 by a whopping 5325% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1246164
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.6122.92
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameG71GA104
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date22 May 2006 (19 years ago)12 January 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,599 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 coresno data5120
Core clock speed450 MHz1110 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1560 MHz
Number of transistors278 million17,400 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt125 Watt
Texture fill rate9.000249.6
Floating-point processing powerno data15.97 TFLOPS
ROPs1680
TMUs20160
Tensor Coresno data160
Ray Tracing Coresno data40
L1 Cacheno data5 MB
L2 Cacheno data4 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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length173 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed660 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth42.24 GB/s448.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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-VideoNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model3.06.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA-8.6
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 3500 0.63
RTX 3070 Mobile 34.18
+5325%

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 3500 265
Samples: 211
RTX 3070 Mobile 14364
+5320%
Samples: 7436

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 HD2−3
−5500%
112
+5500%
1440p1−2
−6900%
70
+6900%
4K0−145

Cost per frame, $

1080p799.50no data
1440p1599.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 241
+0%
241
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 119
+0%
119
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 230
+0%
230
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 107
+0%
107
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 119
+0%
119
+0%
Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 189
+0%
189
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 144
+0%
144
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 134
+0%
134
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 172
+0%
172
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 88
+0%
88
+0%
Dota 2 130
+0%
130
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 114
+0%
114
+0%
Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 188
+0%
188
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 132
+0%
132
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 125
+0%
125
+0%
Metro Exodus 97
+0%
97
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170
+0%
170
+0%
Valorant 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 126
+0%
126
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 74
+0%
74
+0%
Dota 2 120
+0%
120
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 107
+0%
107
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 167
+0%
167
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 94
+0%
94
+0%
Valorant 183
+0%
183
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 106
+0%
106
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 83
+0%
83
+0%
Metro Exodus 59
+0%
59
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 254
+0%
254
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 102
+0%
102
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 47
+0%
47
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 91
+0%
91
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140
+0%
140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 32
+0%
32
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 83
+0%
83
+0%
Metro Exodus 37
+0%
37
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+0%
64
+0%
Valorant 238
+0%
238
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 22
+0%
22
+0%
Dota 2 109
+0%
109
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 93
+0%
93
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

This is how FX 3500 and RTX 3070 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3070 Mobile is 5500% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3070 Mobile is 6900% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.63 34.18
Recency 22 May 2006 12 January 2021
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 125 Watt

FX 3500 has 56.3% lower power consumption.

RTX 3070 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 5325.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1025% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3500 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile is a notebook 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 3500
Quadro FX 3500
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile
GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile

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.


4.1 9 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 2176 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3500 or GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.