Quadro FX 3000 vs Radeon X1650 SE

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 X1650 SE is significantly newer (2023 vs 2008). The Radeon X1650 SE 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 SE is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.9% 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 SE
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.9%)	✅Leading raw performance (+2.9%)
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 $49 for the Radeon X1650 SE, it costs 69% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 217.5% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1650 SE
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+217.5%)	❌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 X1650 SE Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro FX 3000 and Radeon X1650 SE

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 SE

The Radeon X1650 SE is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 17 2023. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 2581 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 71 points. Launch price was $549.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Quadro FX 3000 scores 69 and the Radeon X1650 SE reaches 71 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 3000 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Radeon X1650 SE uses RDNA 2.0, both on 55 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3000) vs 2,560 (Radeon X1650 SE).

Feature	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1650 SE
G3D Mark Score	69	71+3%
Architecture	Tesla 2.0	RDNA 2.0
Process Node	55 nm	7 nm
Shading Units	240	2560+967%
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	80	160+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1650 SE
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 SE has 512 MB. The Radeon X1650 SE offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.

Feature	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1650 SE
VRAM Capacity	0.25 GB	0.5 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 9_0a (Quadro FX 3000) vs 9.0c (Radeon X1650 SE). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

Feature	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1650 SE
DirectX	9_0a	9.0c
Max Displays	2	2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro FX 3000 draws 189W versus the Radeon X1650 SE's 250W — a 27.8% difference. The Quadro FX 3000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3000) vs 350W (Radeon X1650 SE). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	Quadro FX 3000	Radeon X1650 SE
TDP	189W-24%	250W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Length	1mm	—
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	—	75°C
Perf/Watt	0.4+33%	0.3

💰

Value Analysis

The Quadro FX 3000 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the Radeon X1650 SE 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 X1650 SE) — the Quadro FX 3000 offers 228.6% better value. The Radeon X1650 SE is the newer GPU (2023 vs 2008).