Quadro FX 2500M vs Radeon R6 M340DX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R6 M340DX with Quadro FX 2500M, including specs and performance data.
R6 M340DX outperforms 2500M by a whopping 412% 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 | 857 | 1289 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.89 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Jet | G71 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 December 2015 (10 years ago) | 29 September 2005 (20 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 | 384 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 955 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1030 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.72 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.791 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Interface | IGP | 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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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 | 10
+900%
| 1−2
−900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 99.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+63%
|
27−30
−63%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+206%
|
16−18
−206%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+145%
|
10−12
−145%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+63%
|
27−30
−63%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+145%
|
10−12
−145%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+63%
|
27−30
−63%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how R6 M340DX and FX 2500M compete in popular games:
- R6 M340DX is 900% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R6 M340DX is 900% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 2500M is 67% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R6 M340DX performs better in 26 tests (96%)
- FX 2500M performs better in 1 test (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.66 | 0.52 |
| Recency | 12 December 2015 | 29 September 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
R6 M340DX has a 411.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R6 M340DX is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R6 M340DX is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 2500M 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.
