Quadro 3000M vs Radeon R7 250E

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 7730 HD 7750 HD 7770 HD 8730 OEM HD 8740 OEM R7 250E R7 250X R7 350 R7 350 640SP R7 450 OEM R9 255 OEM RX 540 OEM
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
1000M 2000M 3000M 3000M X2 4000M 5000M 5010M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250E with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.

R7 250E
2013, $109
1 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
4.00
+66.7%

R7 250E outperforms 3000M by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R7 250E R7 250E
Quadro 3000M Quadro 3000M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking739889
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.100.11
Power efficiency5.592.46
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameCape VerdeGF104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date20 December 2013 (12 years ago)22 February 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 $398.96

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

R7 250E has 900% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.

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 cores512240
Core clock speed800 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate25.6018.00
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS0.432 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3240
L1 Cache128 KB320 KB
L2 Cache256 KB512 KB

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz625 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s80 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-2.1

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 HD85−90
+66.7%
51
−66.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.28
+510%
7.82
−510%
  • R7 250E has 510% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R7 250E and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:

  • R7 250E is 67% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 4.00 2.40
Recency 20 December 2013 22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 75 Watt

R7 250E has a 66.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 36.4% lower power consumption.

Quadro 3000M, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon R7 250E is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250E is a desktop graphics card while Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon R7 250E
Radeon R7 250E
NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
Quadro 3000M
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
GTX 460 768MB GeForce GTX 460 768MB
Quadro 3000M Quadro 3000M
vs
K2000M Quadro K2000M
R7 250E Radeon R7 250E
vs
GTS 450 Rev. 2 GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 2
R9 255 OEM R9 255 OEM
vs
ATI Graphics Ultra Pro ISA Graphics Ultra Pro ISA
R9 255 OEM R9 255 OEM
vs
GMA X4500M GMA X4500M
R9 255 OEM R9 255 OEM
vs
3000M X2 3000M X2
R9 260 OEM R9 260 OEM
vs
ATI X1550 X1550
R9 260 OEM R9 260 OEM
vs
GT 720 OEM GT 720 OEM
R7 250E R7 250E
vs
Quadro 2000M 2000M
R7 250E R7 250E
vs
Quadro 1000M 1000M
R7 250E R7 250E
vs
R5 (Kaveri) R5 (Kaveri)
R7 250E R7 250E
vs
HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
R7 250E R7 250E
vs
ATI Graphics Ultra Pro Graphics Ultra Pro

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4 25 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 50 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 250E or Quadro 3000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.