
Mobility Radeon HD 4225 vs Quadro FX 3000

Mobility Radeon HD 4225
Popular choices:

Quadro FX 3000
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. The Mobility Radeon HD 4225 is positioned at rank #718 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Mobility Radeon HD 4225
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro FX 3000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.5% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Mobility Radeon HD 4225 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Mobility Radeon HD 4225 | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro FX 3000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro FX 3000 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $15), it costs 0% less, resulting in a 4.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Mobility Radeon HD 4225 | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+4.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 Mobility Radeon HD 4225 and Quadro FX 3000

Mobility Radeon HD 4225
The Mobility Radeon HD 4225 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 7 2010. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 700 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 66 points.

Quadro FX 3000
The Quadro FX 3000 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: 69 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
The Mobility Radeon HD 4225 scores 66 and the Quadro FX 3000 reaches 69 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Mobility Radeon HD 4225 is built on TeraScale 2 while the Quadro FX 3000 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 40 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 800 (Mobility Radeon HD 4225) vs 240 (Quadro FX 3000). Raw compute: 1.12 TFLOPS (Mobility Radeon HD 4225) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3000).
| Feature | Mobility Radeon HD 4225 | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 66 | 69+5% |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 800+233% | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.12 TFLOPS+80% | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 40 | 80+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Mobility Radeon HD 4225 | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The Mobility Radeon HD 4225 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 3000 has 256 MB. The Mobility Radeon HD 4225 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Mobility Radeon HD 4225 | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+100% | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Mobility Radeon HD 4225 draws 50W versus the Quadro FX 3000's 189W — a 116.3% difference. The Mobility Radeon HD 4225 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Mobility Radeon HD 4225) vs 350W (Quadro FX 3000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Mobility Radeon HD 4225 | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-74% | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 1mm |
| Slots | — | 2 |
| Perf/Watt | 1.3+225% | 0.4 |
Value Analysis
The Mobility Radeon HD 4225 launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the Quadro FX 3000 launched at $0 and now averages $15. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 4.4 (Mobility Radeon HD 4225) vs 4.6 (Quadro FX 3000) — the Quadro FX 3000 offers 4.5% better value. The Mobility Radeon HD 4225 is the newer GPU (2010 vs 2008).
| Feature | Mobility Radeon HD 4225 | Quadro FX 3000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 4.4 | 4.6+5% |
| Codename | Broadway | GT200B |
| Release | January 7 2010 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #846 | #815 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.











