Quadro FX 3500M vs Radeon R7 240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 240 with Quadro FX 3500M, including specs and performance data.
R7 240 outperforms 3500M by a whopping 197% 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 | 915 | 1222 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | 5.56 | 1.25 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Oland | G71 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 1 March 2007 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $69 | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 240 has 45% better value for money than FX 3500M.
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 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 780 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 14.00 | 13.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.448 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 20 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 80 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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-III |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | N/A | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 36 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.17 | 0.73 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 1 March 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
R7 240 has a 197.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
FX 3500M, on the other hand, has 11.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 240 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 240 is a desktop 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.
