Quadro FX 3000 vs Radeon R5 M240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M240 with Quadro FX 3000, including specs and performance data.
R5 M240 outperforms FX 3000 by a whopping 631% 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 | 1109 | 1479 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Rankine (2003−2005) |
| GPU code name | Jet | NV35 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 September 2014 (11 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.
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 | 320 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 135 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 130 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6592 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 20 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
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).
| Bus support | Not Listed | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | AGP 8x |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | Not Listed | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 0 MB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | Not Listed | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 425 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 27.2 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 Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 9.0a |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 1.5 (2.1) |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 14
+1300%
| 1−2
−1300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 203.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 6−7 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how R5 M240 and FX 3000 compete in popular games:
- R5 M240 is 1300% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.17 | 0.16 |
| Recency | 18 September 2014 | 22 July 2003 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 130 nm |
R5 M240 has a 631.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 M240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M240 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.
