Radeon R1E vs Quadro FX 3500M

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 3500M

#49

RTX 2000E Ada Generation

MSRP: $999|Avg: $999

100%

#50

RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF Edition

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $1750

98%

#51

RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell

MSRP: $2399|Avg: $2015

97%

#52

RTX A1000

MSRP: $749|Avg: $500

94%

#54

Radeon Pro 5700

MSRP: $799|Avg: $250

94%

#55

Quadro P4000

MSRP: $815|Avg: $290

92%

#57

Quadro RTX 3000

MSRP: $800|Avg: $891

89%

#80

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

966%

#95

Quadro FX 3500M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#99

Quadro K620

MSRP: $150|Avg: $30

96%

#100

Tesla K20Xm

MSRP: $7699|Avg: N/A

96%

#105

Quadro T2000 (móvel)

MSRP: $500|Avg: $150

91%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The Radeon R1E is significantly newer (2023 vs 2008). The Radeon R1E likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 3500M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Quadro FX 3500M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.7% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R1E.

Insight	Radeon R1E	Quadro FX 3500M
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.7%)	✅Leading raw performance (+1.7%)
Longevity	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (5nm)	🛑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	—	—

💎 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.

Radeon R1E Benchmark Check

Quadro FX 3500M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R1E and Quadro FX 3500M

Radeon R1E

The Radeon R1E is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 3 2023. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 400 MHz to 2200 MHz. It has 128 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 5 nm process technology. It features 2 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 301 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 R1E scores 301 and the Quadro FX 3500M reaches 306 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R1E is built on RDNA 2.0 while the Quadro FX 3500M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 5 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 128 (Radeon R1E) vs 240 (Quadro FX 3500M). Raw compute: 0.5632 TFLOPS (Radeon R1E) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3500M).

Feature	Radeon R1E	Quadro FX 3500M
G3D Mark Score	301	306+2%
Architecture	RDNA 2.0	Tesla 2.0
Process Node	5 nm	55 nm
Shading Units	128	240+88%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.5632 TFLOPS	0.6221 TFLOPS+10%
ROPs	4	32+700%
TMUs	8	80+900%
L2 Cache	2 MB+700%	0.25 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon R1E	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: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Radeon R1E) vs 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 3500M) — the Radeon R1E has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon R1E	Quadro FX 3500M
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB+700%	0.25 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (Radeon R1E) vs 9.0c (Quadro FX 3500M). OpenGL: 4.5 vs 2.1. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 1.

Feature	Radeon R1E	Quadro FX 3500M
DirectX	12+33%	9.0c
OpenGL	4.5+114%	2.1
Max Displays	2+100%	1

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (Radeon R1E) vs None (Quadro FX 3500M). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs VP1. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,HEVC (Radeon R1E) vs MPEG-2,WMV9 (Quadro FX 3500M).

Feature	Radeon R1E	Quadro FX 3500M
Encoder	VCE 2.0	None
Decoder	UVD 4.2	VP1
Codecs	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1,HEVC	MPEG-2,WMV9

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon R1E draws 15W versus the Quadro FX 3500M's 189W — a 170.6% difference. The Radeon R1E is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R1E) vs 350W (Quadro FX 3500M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 75°C.