Radeon HD 2900 GT vs Quadro FX 3500M
Radeon HD 2900 GT
Popular choices:
Quadro FX 3500M
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 Radeon HD 2900 GT is positioned at rank 661 and the Quadro FX 3500M is on rank 95, 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 Radeon HD 2900 GT
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 3500M
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 | Radeon HD 2900 GT | Quadro FX 3500M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 Radeon HD 2900 GT and Quadro FX 3500M
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon HD 2900 GT scores 292 and the Quadro FX 3500M reaches 306 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon HD 2900 GT is built on TeraScale 2 while the Quadro FX 3500M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 40 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 480 (Radeon HD 2900 GT) vs 240 (Quadro FX 3500M). Raw compute: 0.696 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 2900 GT) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3500M).
| Feature | Radeon HD 2900 GT | Quadro FX 3500M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 292 | 306+5% |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 480+100% | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.696 TFLOPS+12% | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 80+233% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon HD 2900 GT | Quadro FX 3500M |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Radeon HD 2900 GT | Quadro FX 3500M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10 (Radeon HD 2900 GT) vs 9.0c (Quadro FX 3500M). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 1.
| Feature | Radeon HD 2900 GT | Quadro FX 3500M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10+11% | 9.0c |
| Max Displays | 2+100% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: UVD (Radeon HD 2900 GT) vs None (Quadro FX 3500M). Decoder: UVD vs VP1.
| Feature | Radeon HD 2900 GT | Quadro FX 3500M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | UVD | None |
| Decoder | UVD | VP1 |
| Codecs | — | MPEG-2,WMV9 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon HD 2900 GT draws 25W versus the Quadro FX 3500M's 189W — a 153.3% difference. The Radeon HD 2900 GT is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon HD 2900 GT) vs 350W (Quadro FX 3500M). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon HD 2900 GT | Quadro FX 3500M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 25W-87% | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 241mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 11.7+631% | 1.6 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon HD 2900 GT is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2008).
| Feature | Radeon HD 2900 GT | Quadro FX 3500M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $170 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | — |
| Codename | Thames | GT200B |
| Release | January 7 2013 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #883 | #815 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon HD 2900 GT and Quadro FX 3500M
