Radeon HD 3200 vs Quadro FX 2500M
Radeon HD 3200
Popular choices:
Quadro FX 2500M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Radeon HD 3200 is positioned at rank 321 and the Quadro FX 2500M is on rank 282, so the Quadro FX 2500M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 3200
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 2500M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro FX 2500M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 165.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon HD 3200.
| Insight | Radeon HD 3200 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-165.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+165.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro FX 2500M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon HD 3200 and Quadro FX 2500M
Radeon HD 3200
The Radeon HD 3200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 1 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 750 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 186W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 82 points. Launch price was $180.
Quadro FX 2500M
The Quadro FX 2500M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 218 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Radeon HD 3200 scores 82 versus the Quadro FX 2500M's 218 — the Quadro FX 2500M leads by 165.9%. The Radeon HD 3200 is built on TeraScale 3 while the Quadro FX 2500M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 40 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (Radeon HD 3200) vs 240 (Quadro FX 2500M). Raw compute: 1.92 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 3200) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 2500M).
| Feature | Radeon HD 3200 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 82 | 218+166% |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280+433% | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.92 TFLOPS+209% | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 80 |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon HD 3200 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (Radeon HD 3200) vs 256 KB (Quadro FX 2500M) — the Radeon HD 3200 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon HD 3200 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon HD 3200 draws 186W versus the Quadro FX 2500M's 189W — a 1.6% difference. The Radeon HD 3200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon HD 3200) vs 350W (Quadro FX 2500M). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon HD 3200 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 186W-2% | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 1mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.4 | 1.2+200% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon HD 3200 is the newer GPU (2011 vs 2008).
| Feature | Radeon HD 3200 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $50 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10 | — |
| Codename | Cayman | GT200B |
| Release | December 1 2011 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #598 | #815 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon HD 3200 and Quadro FX 2500M
