Quadro FX 1300 vs RADEON 9550
Quadro FX 1300
Popular choices:
RADEON 9550
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 Quadro FX 1300 is positioned at rank 421 and the RADEON 9550 is on rank 363, so the RADEON 9550 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 1300
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9550
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RADEON 9550 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2008). The RADEON 9550 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 1300 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RADEON 9550 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.9% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (256 MB vs 128 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 1300.
| Insight | Quadro FX 1300 | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro FX 1300 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro FX 1300 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $30), it costs 50% less, resulting in a 94.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 1300 | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+94.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30) |
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 Quadro FX 1300 and RADEON 9550
Quadro FX 1300
The Quadro FX 1300 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: 34 points. Launch price was $3,499.
RADEON 9550
The RADEON 9550 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 20 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1100 MHz to 1183 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 35 points. Launch price was $79.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 1300 scores 34 and the RADEON 9550 reaches 35 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 1300 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the RADEON 9550 uses GCN 4.0, both on 55 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 1300) vs 512 (RADEON 9550). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 1300) vs 1.211 TFLOPS (RADEON 9550).
| Feature | Quadro FX 1300 | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 34 | 35+3% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 512+113% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 1.211 TFLOPS+95% |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 80+150% | 32 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 1300 | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro FX 1300 comes with 128 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9550 has 256 MB. The RADEON 9550 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Quadro FX 1300 | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.125 GB | 0.25 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 1300 draws 189W versus the RADEON 9550's 50W — a 116.3% difference. The RADEON 9550 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 1300) vs 350W (RADEON 9550). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.
| Feature | Quadro FX 1300 | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 50W-74% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 1mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.2 | 0.7+250% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 1300 launched at $599 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the RADEON 9550 launched at $129 and now averages $30. The Quadro FX 1300 costs 50% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 2.3 (Quadro FX 1300) vs 1.2 (RADEON 9550) — the Quadro FX 1300 offers 91.7% better value. The RADEON 9550 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 1300 | RADEON 9550 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $599 | $129-78% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-50% | $30 |
| Performance per Dollar | 2.3+92% | 1.2 |
| Codename | GT200B | Lexa |
| Release | November 11 2008 | April 20 2017 |
| Ranking | #815 | #668 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 1300 and RADEON 9550
