Quadro FX 3000 vs Radeon X1650 GTO
Quadro FX 3000
Popular choices:
Radeon X1650 GTO
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 X1650 GTO
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon X1650 GTO is significantly newer (2022 vs 2008). The Radeon X1650 GTO 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 Radeon X1650 GTO is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 8.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (512 MB vs 256 MB). 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 X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-8.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+8.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (7nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| 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. Priced at $15 versus $20 for the Radeon X1650 GTO, it costs 25% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 22.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+22.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($20) |
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 X1650 GTO
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 X1650 GTO
The Radeon X1650 GTO is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 10 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1925 MHz to 2324 MHz. It has 5120 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 335W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. It features 80 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 75 points. Launch price was $1,099.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Quadro FX 3000 scores 69 versus the Radeon X1650 GTO's 75 — the Radeon X1650 GTO leads by 8.7%. The Quadro FX 3000 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Radeon X1650 GTO uses RDNA 2.0, both on 55 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3000) vs 5,120 (Radeon X1650 GTO). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3000) vs 23.8 TFLOPS (Radeon X1650 GTO).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 69 | 75+9% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | RDNA 2.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 5120+2033% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 23.8 TFLOPS+3726% |
| ROPs | 32 | 128+300% |
| TMUs | 80 | 320+300% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 4 MB+1500% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| 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 X1650 GTO has 512 MB. The Radeon X1650 GTO offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 3000) vs 4 MB (Radeon X1650 GTO) — the Radeon X1650 GTO has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 4 MB+1500% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3000 draws 189W versus the Radeon X1650 GTO's 335W — a 55.7% difference. The Quadro FX 3000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3000) vs 350W (Radeon X1650 GTO). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W-44% | 335W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 1mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.4+100% | 0.2 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 3000 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the Radeon X1650 GTO launched at $150 and now averages $20. The Quadro FX 3000 costs 25% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 4.6 (Quadro FX 3000) vs 3.8 (Radeon X1650 GTO) — the Quadro FX 3000 offers 21.1% better value. The Radeon X1650 GTO is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3000 | Radeon X1650 GTO |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $150 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-25% | $20 |
| Performance per Dollar | 4.6+21% | 3.8 |
| Codename | GT200B | Navi 21 |
| Release | November 11 2008 | May 10 2022 |
| Ranking | #815 | #25 |
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 X1650 GTO
