GeForce RTX 2070 vs Quadro FX 3500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 3500M with GeForce RTX 2070, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2070 outperforms FX 3500M by a whopping 5149% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1151 | 94 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | 32.77 |
| Power efficiency | 1.22 | 16.52 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G71 | TU106 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 March 2007 (17 years ago) | 17 October 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 2070 has 29691% better value for money than FX 3500M.
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 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 1410 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 575 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 278 million | 10,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.80 | 233.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 7.465 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 24 | 144 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 36 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 229 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 448.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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.
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.
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 | 2−3
−6350%
| 129
+6350%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−8700%
| 88
+8700%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−6100%
| 62
+6100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 50.00
−1192%
| 3.87
+1192%
|
| 1440p | 99.99
−1663%
| 5.67
+1663%
|
| 4K | 99.99
−1142%
| 8.05
+1142%
|
- RTX 2070 has 1192% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 2070 has 1663% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 2070 has 1142% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−889%
|
85−90
+889%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2933%
|
90−95
+2933%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−889%
|
85−90
+889%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2857%
|
200−210
+2857%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−2100%
|
110
+2100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−889%
|
85−90
+889%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1133%
|
37
+1133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1063%
|
93
+1063%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−8200%
|
166
+8200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2857%
|
200−210
+2857%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−2350%
|
245
+2350%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−1200%
|
65
+1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2417%
|
150−160
+2417%
|
| World of Tanks | 20−22
−1295%
|
270−280
+1295%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−889%
|
85−90
+889%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
32
+967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2857%
|
200−210
+2857%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1220%
|
132
+1220%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4275%
|
170−180
+4275%
|
| World of Tanks | 3−4
−8767%
|
260−270
+8767%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−2620%
|
130−140
+2620%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−2440%
|
127
+2440%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−473%
|
86
+473%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−473%
|
86
+473%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−6300%
|
128
+6300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−473%
|
86
+473%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−4700%
|
48
+4700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−673%
|
116
+673%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−6700%
|
68
+6700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Valorant | 208
+0%
|
208
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 160
+0%
|
160
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Valorant | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Valorant | 184
+0%
|
184
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how FX 3500M and RTX 2070 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2070 is 6350% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2070 is 8700% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2070 is 6100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 2070 is 8767% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2070 is ahead in 36 tests (56%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (44%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.80 | 41.99 |
| Recency | 1 March 2007 | 17 October 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 175 Watt |
FX 3500M has 288.9% lower power consumption.
RTX 2070, on the other hand, has a 5148.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2070 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 3500M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 2070 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
