CPU
GPU
Quadro FX 2000
Popular choices:
RADEON 9600SE
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 2000 is positioned at rank 426 and the RADEON 9600SE is on rank 723, so the Quadro FX 2000 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 2000
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9600SE
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RADEON 9600SE is significantly newer (2025 vs 2010). The RADEON 9600SE likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 2000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RADEON 9600SE is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 50% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (512 MB vs 128 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 2000.
| Insight | Quadro FX 2000 | RADEON 9600SE |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-50%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+50%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro FX 2000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $40 versus $65 for the RADEON 9600SE, it costs 38% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 8.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 2000 | RADEON 9600SE |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+8.3%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($40) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($65) |
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 2000 and RADEON 9600SE
Quadro FX 2000
The Quadro FX 2000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 24 2010. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 625 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 62W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 18 points. Launch price was $599.
RADEON 9600SE
The RADEON 9600SE is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 6 2025. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1295 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 40 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 27 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Quadro FX 2000 scores 18 versus the RADEON 9600SE's 27 — the RADEON 9600SE leads by 50%. The Quadro FX 2000 is built on Fermi while the RADEON 9600SE uses RDNA 3.5, both on 40 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 192 (Quadro FX 2000) vs 2,560 (RADEON 9600SE). Raw compute: 0.48 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 2000) vs 14.85 TFLOPS (RADEON 9600SE).
| Feature | Quadro FX 2000 | RADEON 9600SE |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 18 | 27+50% |
| Architecture | Fermi | RDNA 3.5 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 2560+1233% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.48 TFLOPS | 14.85 TFLOPS+2994% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 32 | 160+400% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 8 MB+3100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 2000 | RADEON 9600SE |
|---|---|---|
| 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 2000 comes with 128 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9600SE has 512 MB. The RADEON 9600SE offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 2000) vs 8 MB (RADEON 9600SE) — the RADEON 9600SE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 2000 | RADEON 9600SE |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.125 GB | 0.5 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 8 MB+3100% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 2000 draws 62W versus the RADEON 9600SE's 55W — a 12% difference. The RADEON 9600SE is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 2000) vs 350W (RADEON 9600SE). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.
| Feature | Quadro FX 2000 | RADEON 9600SE |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 62W | 55W-11% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | — | 168mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 60 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.3 | 0.5+67% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 2000 launched at $3000 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the RADEON 9600SE launched at $65 and now averages $65. The Quadro FX 2000 costs 38.5% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.5 (Quadro FX 2000) vs 0.4 (RADEON 9600SE) — the Quadro FX 2000 offers 25% better value. The RADEON 9600SE is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2010).
| Feature | Quadro FX 2000 | RADEON 9600SE |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3000 | $65-98% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40-38% | $65 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.5+25% | 0.4 |
| Codename | GF106 | Strix Halo |
| Release | December 24 2010 | January 6 2025 |
| Ranking | #902 | #98 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 2000 and RADEON 9600SE
