Radeon R9 350 vs Quadro 5000
Radeon R9 350
Popular choices:
Quadro 5000
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Quadro 5000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 350 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro 5000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Radeon R9 350 | Quadro 5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+25%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R9 350 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R9 350 holds the technical lead. Priced at $50 (vs $100), it costs 50% less, resulting in a 103.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R9 350 | Quadro 5000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+103.6%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($50) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) |
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 R9 350 and Quadro 5000
Radeon R9 350
The Radeon R9 350 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,998 points. Launch price was $329.
Quadro 5000
The Quadro 5000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 23 2011. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 513 MHz. It has 352 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 152W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,963 points. Launch price was $2,499.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R9 350 scores 1,998 and the Quadro 5000 reaches 1,963 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R9 350 is built on GCN 2.0 while the Quadro 5000 uses Fermi, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (Radeon R9 350) vs 352 (Quadro 5000). Raw compute: 5.12 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 350) vs 0.7223 TFLOPS (Quadro 5000).
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Quadro 5000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,998+2% | 1,963 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Fermi |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560+627% | 352 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.12 TFLOPS+609% | 0.7223 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64+60% | 40 |
| TMUs | 160+264% | 44 |
| L1 Cache | 640 KB | 704 KB+10% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+59% | 0.63 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Quadro 5000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 R9 350 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro 5000 has 3 GB. The Quadro 5000 offers 25% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (Radeon R9 350) vs 0.63 MB (Quadro 5000) — the Radeon R9 350 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Quadro 5000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2.5 GB+25% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+59% | 0.63 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R9 350 draws 300W versus the Quadro 5000's 152W — a 65.5% difference. The Quadro 5000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (Radeon R9 350) vs 350W (Quadro 5000). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Quadro 5000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 300W | 152W-49% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 168mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 6.7 | 12.9+93% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 350 launched at $99 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the Quadro 5000 launched at $2499 and now averages $100. The Radeon R9 350 costs 50% less ($50 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 40.0 (Radeon R9 350) vs 19.6 (Quadro 5000) — the Radeon R9 350 offers 104.1% better value. The Radeon R9 350 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | Radeon R9 350 | Quadro 5000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $99-96% | $2499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50-50% | $100 |
| Performance per Dollar | 40.0+104% | 19.6 |
| Codename | Grenada | GF100 |
| Release | June 18 2015 | February 23 2011 |
| Ranking | #296 | #687 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R9 350 and Quadro 5000
