Quadro FX 3500M vs Radeon R7 350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 350 with Quadro FX 3500M, including specs and performance data.

R7 350
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
5.16
+607%

R7 350 outperforms 3500M by a whopping 607% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6731224
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.11
Power efficiency7.221.25
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameCape VerdeG71
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date6 July 2016 (9 years ago)1 March 2007 (19 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.

no data

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 cores51232
Core clock speed800 MHz575 MHz
Boost clock speedno data575 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate25.6013.80
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1616
TMUs3224
L1 Cache128 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KBno 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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-III
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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz600 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/s38.4 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 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)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/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 2−3
+0%
2−3
+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%
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%
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%
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

Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
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 32 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.16 0.73
Recency 6 July 2016 1 March 2007
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 45 Watt

R7 350 has a 607% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3500M, on the other hand, has 22% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 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.

Community ratings

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


3.8 584 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Quadro FX 3500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 350 or Quadro FX 3500M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.