Quadro FX 3500 vs NVS 310
Quadro FX 3500
Popular choices:
NVS 310
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 NVS 310 is on rank 305, so the NVS 310 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 NVS 310
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The NVS 310 is significantly newer (2015 vs 2008). The NVS 310 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 3500 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The NVS 310 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.8% 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 | NVS 310 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| 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 |
💎 Value Proposition
The NVS 310 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the NVS 310 holds the technical lead. Priced at $10 (vs $1,599), it costs 99% less, resulting in a 16493.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3500 | NVS 310 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+16493.4%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($1,599) | ✅More affordable ($10) |
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 NVS 310
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.
NVS 310
The NVS 310 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 4 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 902 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 512 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 68W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 275 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 3500 scores 265 and the NVS 310 reaches 275 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 3500 is built on Tesla 2.0 while the NVS 310 uses Maxwell, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3500) vs 512 (NVS 310). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3500) vs 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 (NVS 310).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500 | NVS 310 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 265 | 275+4% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 512 ×2+113% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 1.058 TFLOPS ×2+70% |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 ×2 |
| TMUs | 80+150% | 32 ×2 |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500 | NVS 310 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 NVS 310 has 512 MB. The NVS 310 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 3500) vs 1 MB (NVS 310) — the NVS 310 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500 | NVS 310 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 1 MB+300% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3500 draws 189W versus the NVS 310's 68W — a 94.2% difference. The NVS 310 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3500) vs 350W (NVS 310). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500 | NVS 310 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 68W-64% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 145mm |
| Height | — | 69mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 1.4 | 4.0+186% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro FX 3500 launched at $1599 MSRP and currently averages $1599, while the NVS 310 launched at $159 and now averages $10. The NVS 310 costs 99.4% less ($1589 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.2 (Quadro FX 3500) vs 27.5 (NVS 310) — the NVS 310 offers 13650% better value. The NVS 310 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500 | NVS 310 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1599 | $159-90% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $1599 | $10-99% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.2 | 27.5+13650% |
| Codename | GT200B | GM107 |
| Release | November 11 2008 | November 4 2015 |
| Ranking | #815 | #826 |
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 NVS 310
