RTX A3000 Mobile vs Quadro FX 3500

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3500 with RTX A3000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

FX 3500
2006
256 MB GDDR3, 80 Watt
0.67

RTX A3000 Mobile outperforms FX 3500 by a whopping 4751% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1185172
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.5831.96
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameG71GA104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date22 May 2006 (18 years ago)12 April 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,599 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 data4096
Core clock speed450 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1230 MHz
Number of transistors278 million17,400 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate9.000157.4
Floating-point processing powerno data10.08 TFLOPS
ROPs1664
TMUs20128
Tensor Coresno data128
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).

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 MB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed660 MHz1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth42.24 GB/s264.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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-VideoPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model3.06.7
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.6

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 3500 0.67
RTX A3000 Mobile 32.50
+4751%

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 259
RTX A3000 Mobile 12496
+4725%

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
−4900%
100
+4900%
1440p1−2
−5300%
54
+5300%
4K0−147

Cost per frame, $

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 77
+0%
77
+0%
Elden Ring 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 67
+0%
67
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 164
+0%
164
+0%
Metro Exodus 103
+0%
103
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 55
+0%
55
+0%
Dota 2 130
+0%
130
+0%
Elden Ring 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 85
+0%
85
+0%
Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 134
+0%
134
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 124
+0%
124
+0%
Metro Exodus 49
+0%
49
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+0%
46
+0%
Dota 2 132
+0%
132
+0%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 114
+0%
114
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 62
+0%
62
+0%
Elden Ring 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 62
+0%
62
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
World of Tanks 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 86
+0%
86
+0%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 49
+0%
49
+0%
Elden Ring 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+0%
49
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 49
+0%
49
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
+0%
7
+0%
Dota 2 77
+0%
77
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 51
+0%
51
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

This is how FX 3500 and RTX A3000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX A3000 Mobile is 4900% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A3000 Mobile is 5300% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.67 32.50
Recency 22 May 2006 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 70 Watt

RTX A3000 Mobile has a 4750.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 1025% more advanced lithography process, and 14.3% lower power consumption.

The RTX A3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3500 is a workstation card while RTX A3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation 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 3500
Quadro FX 3500
NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile
RTX A3000 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
3.7 127 votes

Rate RTX A3000 Mobile 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.