Quadro FX 3500M vs Radeon R5 (Kaveri)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Kaveri) with Quadro FX 3500M, including specs and performance data.
R5 (Kaveri) outperforms 3500M by an impressive 53% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1124 | 1224 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.25 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri | G71 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 March 2007 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 256 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 514 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 626 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 13.80 |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 | medium sized | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-III |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 38.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | no data | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | N/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
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10.3%
|
27−30
−10.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10.3%
|
27−30
−10.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10.3%
|
27−30
−10.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R5 (Kaveri) is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 (Kaveri) performs better in 21 tests (66%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (34%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.12 | 0.73 |
| Recency | 4 June 2014 | 1 March 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
R5 (Kaveri) has a 53% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 221% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 (Kaveri) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 (Kaveri) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 3500M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
