Quadro FX 3000 vs Radeon X1550

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.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The Radeon X1550 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2008). The Radeon X1550 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 3000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Quadro FX 3000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon X1550 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1550
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+3%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-3%)
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	📏 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 $49), it costs 69% less, resulting in a 236.4% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1550
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+236.4%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($15)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49)

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.

Quadro FX 3000 Benchmark Check

Radeon X1550 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro FX 3000 and Radeon X1550

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 X1550

The Radeon X1550 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: 67 points. Launch price was $79.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Quadro FX 3000 scores 69 and the Radeon X1550 reaches 67 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 3000 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Radeon X1550 uses GCN 4.0, both on 55 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3000) vs 512 (Radeon X1550). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3000) vs 1.211 TFLOPS (Radeon X1550).

Feature	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1550
G3D Mark Score	69+3%	67
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 3000	Radeon X1550
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 3000 comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon X1550 has 512 MB. The Radeon X1550 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.

Feature	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1550
VRAM Capacity	0.25 GB	0.5 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	256 KB	256 KB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 9_0a (Quadro FX 3000) vs 9_0c (Radeon X1550). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

Feature	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1550
DirectX	9_0a	9_0c
Max Displays	2	2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro FX 3000 draws 189W versus the Radeon X1550's 50W — a 116.3% difference. The Radeon X1550 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3000) vs 350W (Radeon X1550). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 1mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots.

Feature	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1550
TDP	189W	50W-74%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Length	1mm	168mm
Slots	2	1-50%
Perf/Watt	0.4	1.3+225%

💰

Value Analysis

The Quadro FX 3000 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the Radeon X1550 launched at $0 and now averages $49. The Quadro FX 3000 costs 69.4% less ($34 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 4.6 (Quadro FX 3000) vs 1.4 (Radeon X1550) — the Quadro FX 3000 offers 228.6% better value. The Radeon X1550 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2008).