Quadro FX 3000 vs Radeon R5 (Carrizo)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 (Carrizo) with Quadro FX 3000, including specs and performance data.

R5 (Carrizo)
2015
12 Watt
1.70
+963%

R5 (Carrizo) outperforms FX 3000 by a whopping 963% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9901479
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.74no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameCarrizoNV35
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date4 June 2015 (10 years ago)22 July 2003 (22 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$203

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 cores256no data
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed800 MHzno data
Number of transistors2410 Million135 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12-35 Wattno data
Texture fill rateno data3.200
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Interfaceno dataAGP 8x
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x Molex

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 typeno dataDDR
Maximum RAM amountno data256 MB
Memory bus width64/128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data425 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data27.2 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 Connectorsno data2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)9.0a
OpenGLno data1.5 (2.1)
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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

Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Fortnite 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+1133%
3−4
−1133%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Fortnite 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3 0−1
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+1133%
3−4
−1133%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+1133%
3−4
−1133%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 7−8 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Valorant 10−11 0−1

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Valorant 8−9 0−1

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.70 0.16
Recency 4 June 2015 22 July 2003
Chip lithography 28 nm 130 nm

R5 (Carrizo) has a 963% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 364% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R5 (Carrizo) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 (Carrizo) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 3000 is a workstation one.

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 6 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Carrizo) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R5 (Carrizo) or Quadro FX 3000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.