Quadro FX 3000 vs Radeon HD 2350
Quadro FX 3000
Popular choices:
Radeon HD 2350
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 2350
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon HD 2350 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 11.6% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 3000.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon HD 2350 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-11.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+11.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| 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 $48), it costs 69% less, resulting in a 186.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon HD 2350 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+186.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($48) |
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 3000 and Radeon HD 2350
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.
Radeon HD 2350
The Radeon HD 2350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 31 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1250 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 77 points. Launch price was $449.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Quadro FX 3000 scores 69 versus the Radeon HD 2350's 77 — the Radeon HD 2350 leads by 11.6%. The Quadro FX 3000 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Radeon HD 2350 uses GCN 1.0, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3000) vs 1,792 (Radeon HD 2350). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3000) vs 2.867 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 2350).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon HD 2350 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 69 | 77+12% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 1792+647% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 2.867 TFLOPS+361% |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 112+40% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 768 KB+200% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon HD 2350 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 256 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (Quadro FX 3000) vs 768 KB (Radeon HD 2350) — the Radeon HD 2350 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon HD 2350 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 768 KB+200% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3000 draws 189W versus the Radeon HD 2350's 200W — a 5.7% difference. The Quadro FX 3000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3000) vs 350W (Radeon HD 2350). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon HD 2350 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W-6% | 200W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 1mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.4 | 0.4 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 3000 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the Radeon HD 2350 launched at $50 and now averages $48. The Quadro FX 3000 costs 68.8% less ($33 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 4.6 (Quadro FX 3000) vs 1.6 (Radeon HD 2350) — the Quadro FX 3000 offers 187.5% better value. The Radeon HD 2350 is the newer GPU (2012 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon HD 2350 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $50 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-69% | $48 |
| Performance per Dollar | 4.6+187% | 1.6 |
| Codename | GT200B | Tahiti |
| Release | November 11 2008 | January 31 2012 |
| Ranking | #815 | #454 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 3000 and Radeon HD 2350
