Quadro FX 350M vs Radeon R7 250E
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 250E with Quadro FX 350M, including specs and performance data.
R7 250E outperforms 350M by a whopping 3536% 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 | 742 | 1515 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.10 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.60 | 0.56 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | G72 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 20 December 2013 (12 years ago) | 13 March 2006 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | no data |
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 | 512 | 7 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 112 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 1.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 2 |
| TMUs | 32 | 4 |
| L1 Cache | 128 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 14.4 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 DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 22 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.00 | 0.11 |
| Recency | 20 December 2013 | 13 March 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 15 Watt |
R7 250E has a 3536% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221% more advanced lithography process.
FX 350M, on the other hand, has 267% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 250E is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 350M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 250E is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 350M 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.
