Radeon HD 3000 vs Radeon X1600 Pro
Radeon HD 3000
Popular choices:
Radeon X1600 Pro
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 3000 is positioned at rank 316 and the Radeon X1600 Pro is on rank 342, so the Radeon HD 3000 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 3000
Performance Per Dollar Radeon X1600 Pro
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon X1600 Pro is significantly newer (2020 vs 2011). The Radeon X1600 Pro likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon HD 3000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon X1600 Pro is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.1% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon HD 3000.
| Insight | Radeon HD 3000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) |
| 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 | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon HD 3000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $10 versus $49 for the Radeon X1600 Pro, it costs 80% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 375.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon HD 3000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+375.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($10) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) |
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 3000 and Radeon X1600 Pro
Radeon HD 3000
The Radeon HD 3000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 1 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 750 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 186W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 96 points. Launch price was $180.
Radeon X1600 Pro
The Radeon X1600 Pro is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 21 2020. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1130 MHz to 1560 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 99 points.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon HD 3000 scores 96 and the Radeon X1600 Pro reaches 99 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon HD 3000 is built on TeraScale 3 while the Radeon X1600 Pro uses RDNA 1.0, both on 40 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (Radeon HD 3000) vs 2,048 (Radeon X1600 Pro). Raw compute: 1.92 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 3000) vs 6.39 TFLOPS (Radeon X1600 Pro).
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 96 | 99+3% |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280 | 2048+60% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.92 TFLOPS | 6.39 TFLOPS+233% |
| ROPs | 32 | 64+100% |
| TMUs | 80 | 128+60% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 3 MB+500% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (Radeon HD 3000) vs 3 MB (Radeon X1600 Pro) — the Radeon X1600 Pro has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 3 MB+500% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.0 (Radeon HD 3000) vs 9.0c (Radeon X1600 Pro). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.0+11% | 9.0c |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: UVD (Radeon HD 3000) vs None (Radeon X1600 Pro). Decoder: UVD vs Avivo.
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | UVD | None |
| Decoder | UVD | Avivo |
| Codecs | — | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon HD 3000 draws 186W versus the Radeon X1600 Pro's 150W — a 21.4% difference. The Radeon X1600 Pro is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon HD 3000) vs 350W (Radeon X1600 Pro). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 1mm vs 168mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 186W | 150W-19% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 1mm | 168mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 0.5 | 0.7+40% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon HD 3000 launched at $50 MSRP and currently averages $10, while the Radeon X1600 Pro launched at $149 and now averages $49. The Radeon HD 3000 costs 79.6% less ($39 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.6 (Radeon HD 3000) vs 2.0 (Radeon X1600 Pro) — the Radeon HD 3000 offers 380% better value. The Radeon X1600 Pro is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2011).
| Feature | Radeon HD 3000 | Radeon X1600 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $50-66% | $149 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-80% | $49 |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.6+380% | 2.0 |
| Codename | Cayman | Navi 10 |
| Release | December 1 2011 | January 21 2020 |
| Ranking | #598 | #216 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon HD 3000 and Radeon X1600 Pro
