Quadro RTX 6000 vs Quadro FX 3500M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3500M with Quadro RTX 6000, including specs and performance data.

FX 3500M
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 45 Watt
0.79

RTX 6000 outperforms FX 3500M by a whopping 6029% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking114769
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.115.31
Power efficiency1.2012.78
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG71TU102
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date1 March 2007 (17 years ago)13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.99 $6,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 6000 has 4727% 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 cores324608
Core clock speed575 MHz1440 MHz
Boost clock speed575 MHz1770 MHz
Number of transistors278 million18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt260 Watt
Texture fill rate13.80509.8
Floating-point processing powerno data16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs1696
TMUs24288
Tensor Coresno data576
Ray Tracing Coresno data72

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-IIIPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB24 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth38.4 GB/s672.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model3.06.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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.

FX 3500M 0.79
RTX 6000 48.42
+6029%

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 3500M 306
RTX 6000 18649
+5994%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−5900%
180−190
+5900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−5900%
180−190
+5900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−5900%
180−190
+5900%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−5733%
700−750
+5733%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−5614%
400−450
+5614%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6029%
1900−1950
+6029%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−5900%
180−190
+5900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−5900%
180−190
+5900%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−5733%
700−750
+5733%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−5614%
400−450
+5614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−5900%
600−650
+5900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6029%
1900−1950
+6029%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−5900%
180−190
+5900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−5900%
180−190
+5900%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−5733%
700−750
+5733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−5614%
400−450
+5614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−5900%
600−650
+5900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6029%
1900−1950
+6029%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Hitman 3 7−8
−5614%
400−450
+5614%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−5900%
240−250
+5900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
−5900%
180−190
+5900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−5900%
180−190
+5900%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.79 48.42
Recency 1 March 2007 13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 24 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 260 Watt

FX 3500M has 477.8% lower power consumption.

RTX 6000, on the other hand, has a 6029.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 6000 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 Quadro RTX 6000 is a 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 3500M
Quadro FX 3500M
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000
Quadro RTX 6000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


No user ratings yet.

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 131 vote

Rate Quadro RTX 6000 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.