Radeon 3000 vs Quadro FX 4000

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 Quadro FX 4000

#408

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

295460%

#423

Quadro FX 4000

MSRP: $2199|Avg: $50

100%

#424

RADEON IGP 320

MSRP: $100|Avg: $20

80%

#425

Quadro FX 500/FX 600

MSRP: $449|Avg: $15

40%

#426

Quadro FX 2000

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $40

20%

#427

GRID V100-8Q

MSRP: $10000|Avg: $10000

0%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The Radeon 3000 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2008). The Radeon 3000 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 4000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Quadro FX 4000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon 3000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	Radeon 3000	Quadro FX 4000
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.1%)	✅Leading raw performance (+3.1%)
Longevity	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) (14nm)	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

The Quadro FX 4000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $50 (vs $49), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 1% better value per dollar than the Radeon 3000.

Insight	Radeon 3000	Quadro FX 4000
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+1%)
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($49)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50)

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.

Radeon 3000 Benchmark Check

Quadro FX 4000 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon 3000 and Quadro FX 4000

Radeon 3000

The Radeon 3000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 13 2019. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1082 MHz to 1218 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 98 points.

Quadro FX 4000

The Quadro FX 4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 602 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 101 points. Launch price was $1,799.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon 3000 scores 98 and the Quadro FX 4000 reaches 101 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon 3000 is built on GCN 4.0 while the Quadro FX 4000 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 14 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 512 (Radeon 3000) vs 192 (Quadro FX 4000). Raw compute: 1.247 TFLOPS (Radeon 3000) vs 0.4623 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 4000).

Feature	Radeon 3000	Quadro FX 4000
G3D Mark Score	98	101+3%
Architecture	GCN 4.0	Tesla 2.0
Process Node	14 nm	55 nm
Shading Units	512+167%	192
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.247 TFLOPS+170%	0.4623 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	24+50%
TMUs	32	64+100%
L2 Cache	512 KB+167%	192 KB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon 3000	Quadro FX 4000
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Radeon 3000 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 4000 has 256 MB. The Radeon 3000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (Radeon 3000) vs 192 KB (Quadro FX 4000) — the Radeon 3000 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon 3000	Quadro FX 4000
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB+100%	0.25 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	512 KB+167%	192 KB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon 3000 draws 50W versus the Quadro FX 4000's 150W — a 100% difference. The Radeon 3000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon 3000) vs 350W (Quadro FX 4000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	Radeon 3000	Quadro FX 4000
TDP	50W-67%	150W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Length	1mm	—
Slots	0	—
Perf/Watt	2.0+186%	0.7

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon 3000 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the Quadro FX 4000 launched at $2199 and now averages $50. The Radeon 3000 costs 2% less ($1 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 2.0 (Radeon 3000) vs 2.0 (Quadro FX 4000) — the Quadro FX 4000 offers 0% better value. The Radeon 3000 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2008).