GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile vs Quadro FX 3500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 3500M with GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 Ti Mobile outperforms FX 3500M by a whopping 3065% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1110 | 198 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 63 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | no data |
| Architecture | G7x (2005−2007) | Ampere (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | G71GLM | GN20-P1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 March 2007 (17 years ago) | 10 May 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | no data |
| Current price | $69 (0.7x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 32 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 8 MHz | 1222 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 575 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 278 million | 13,250 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 13.80 | 118.8 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro FX 3500M and GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-III | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1200 MHz | 12000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 192.0 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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | no data | 8.6 |
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
−3600%
| 74
+3600%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−4200%
| 43
+4200%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 26 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−11 | no data |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 7−8 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | no data |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | no data |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2 | no data |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | no data |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 60
−2983%
|
1850−1900
+2983%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−3010%
|
2550−2600
+3010%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
−3048%
|
3400−3450
+3048%
|
| Metro Exodus | 143
−3047%
|
4500−4550
+3047%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35
−3043%
|
1100−1150
+3043%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−3010%
|
2550−2600
+3010%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
−3048%
|
3400−3450
+3048%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95
−3058%
|
3000−3050
+3058%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 26
−2977%
|
800−850
+2977%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
−3048%
|
3400−3450
+3048%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 26
−2977%
|
800−850
+2977%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−3000%
|
1550−1600
+3000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
−2983%
|
1850−1900
+2983%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 61
−3015%
|
1900−1950
+3015%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20
−2900%
|
600−650
+2900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−2900%
|
750−800
+2900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 20
−2900%
|
600−650
+2900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 19
−3058%
|
600−650
+3058%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
−3003%
|
900−950
+3003%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 14−16
−2757%
|
400−450
+2757%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−2757%
|
400−450
+2757%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
−2900%
|
300−310
+2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−2988%
|
1050−1100
+2988%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10
−2900%
|
300−310
+2900%
|
This is how FX 3500M and RTX 3050 Ti Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 3600% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 4200% faster in 1440p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.79 | 25.00 |
| Recency | 1 March 2007 | 10 May 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 60 Watt |
The GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile 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 3050 Ti 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
