Quadro FX 3500 vs GeForce 9650M GS
Quadro FX 3500
Popular choices:
GeForce 9650M GS
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 3500 is positioned at rank 408 and the GeForce 9650M GS is on rank 680, so the Quadro FX 3500 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 3500
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 9650M GS
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 9650M GS is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.9% 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 3500.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3500 | GeForce 9650M GS |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce 9650M GS offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce 9650M GS holds the technical lead. Priced at $20 (vs $1,599), it costs 99% less, resulting in a 8045.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3500 | GeForce 9650M GS |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+8045.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($1,599) | ✅More affordable ($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 3500 and GeForce 9650M GS
Quadro FX 3500
The Quadro FX 3500 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: 265 points. Launch price was $3,499.
GeForce 9650M GS
The GeForce 9650M GS is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 22 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 790 MHz to 835 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 270 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 3500 scores 265 and the GeForce 9650M GS reaches 270 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 3500 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the GeForce 9650M GS uses Kepler, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3500) vs 768 (GeForce 9650M GS).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500 | GeForce 9650M GS |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 265 | 270+2% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 768+220% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500 | GeForce 9650M GS |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro FX 3500 comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce 9650M GS has 512 MB. The GeForce 9650M GS offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500 | GeForce 9650M GS |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3500 draws 189W versus the GeForce 9650M GS's 30W — a 145.2% difference. The GeForce 9650M GS is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3500) vs 350W (GeForce 9650M GS). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500 | GeForce 9650M GS |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 30W-84% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 1.4 | 9.0+543% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 3500 launched at $1599 MSRP and currently averages $1599, while the GeForce 9650M GS launched at $199 and now averages $20. The GeForce 9650M GS costs 98.7% less ($1579 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.2 (Quadro FX 3500) vs 13.5 (GeForce 9650M GS) — the GeForce 9650M GS offers 6650% better value. The GeForce 9650M GS is the newer GPU (2012 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500 | GeForce 9650M GS |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1599 | $199-88% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $1599 | $20-99% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.2 | 13.5+6650% |
| Codename | GT200B | N13E-GE |
| Release | November 11 2008 | March 22 2012 |
| Ranking | #815 | #690 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 3500 and GeForce 9650M GS
