Quadro FX 3600M vs Radeon R5 M240
Quadro FX 3600M
Popular choices:
Radeon R5 M240
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 3600M is positioned at rank 65 and the Radeon R5 M240 is on rank 238, so the Quadro FX 3600M 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 3600M
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R5 M240
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R5 M240 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 3600M.
| Insight | Quadro FX 3600M | Radeon R5 M240 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| 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 Radeon R5 M240 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 3600M and Radeon R5 M240
Quadro FX 3600M
The Quadro FX 3600M 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: 467 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Radeon R5 M240
The Radeon R5 M240 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 8 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 780 MHz. It has 320 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 473 points. Launch price was $69.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro FX 3600M scores 467 and the Radeon R5 M240 reaches 473 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro FX 3600M is built on Tesla 2.0 while the Radeon R5 M240 uses GCN 1.0, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro FX 3600M) vs 320 (Radeon R5 M240). Raw compute: 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3600M) vs 0.448 TFLOPS (Radeon R5 M240).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | Radeon R5 M240 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 467 | 473+1% |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 320+33% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6221 TFLOPS+39% | 0.448 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 80+300% | 20 |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | Radeon R5 M240 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 3600M | Radeon R5 M240 |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 10 (Quadro FX 3600M) vs 12 (Radeon R5 M240). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 0.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | Radeon R5 M240 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10 | 12+20% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (Quadro FX 3600M) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon R5 M240). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP2) vs UVD 4.2.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | Radeon R5 M240 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP2) | UVD 4.2 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro FX 3600M draws 189W versus the Radeon R5 M240's 30W — a 145.2% difference. The Radeon R5 M240 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro FX 3600M) vs 350W (Radeon R5 M240). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile. Card length: 0mm vs 1mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | Radeon R5 M240 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 189W | 30W-84% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Length | 0mm | 1mm |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | 85 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 2.5 | 15.8+532% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R5 M240 is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2008).
| Feature | Quadro FX 3600M | Radeon R5 M240 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $30 |
| Codename | GT200B | Oland |
| Release | November 11 2008 | October 8 2013 |
| Ranking | #815 | #911 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro FX 3600M and Radeon R5 M240
