CPU
GPU
Quadro FX 3500M
Popular choices:
Radeon HD 2900 GT
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 3500M is positioned at rank 95 and the Radeon HD 2900 GT is on rank 661, so the Quadro FX 3500M 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 3500M
Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 2900 GT
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro FX 3500M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon HD 2900 GT.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3500M | Radeon HD 2900 GT |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro FX 3500M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 3500M and Radeon HD 2900 GT
Quadro FX 3500M
The Quadro FX 3500M 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: 306 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Radeon HD 2900 GT
The Radeon HD 2900 GT is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 7 2013. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 725 MHz. It has 480 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 25W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 292 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 3500M scores 306 and the Radeon HD 2900 GT reaches 292 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 3500M is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Radeon HD 2900 GT uses TeraScale 2, both on 55 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3500M) vs 480 (Radeon HD 2900 GT). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3500M) vs 0.696 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 2900 GT).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500M | Radeon HD 2900 GT |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 306+5% | 292 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | TeraScale 2 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 480+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 0.696 TFLOPS+12% |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 80+233% | 24 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500M | Radeon HD 2900 GT |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500M | Radeon HD 2900 GT |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 9.0c (Quadro FX 3500M) vs 10 (Radeon HD 2900 GT). Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500M | Radeon HD 2900 GT |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 9.0c | 10+11% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (Quadro FX 3500M) vs UVD (Radeon HD 2900 GT). Decoder: VP1 vs UVD.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500M | Radeon HD 2900 GT |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | UVD |
| Decoder | VP1 | UVD |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,WMV9 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3500M draws 189W versus the Radeon HD 2900 GT's 25W — a 153.3% difference. The Radeon HD 2900 GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3500M) vs 350W (Radeon HD 2900 GT). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500M | Radeon HD 2900 GT |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 25W-87% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | — | 241mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 1.6 | 11.7+631% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon HD 2900 GT is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3500M | Radeon HD 2900 GT |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $170 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $15 |
| Codename | GT200B | Thames |
| Release | November 11 2008 | January 7 2013 |
| Ranking | #815 | #883 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 3500M and Radeon HD 2900 GT
