Radeon X1550 vs Quadro FX 3000

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

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The Radeon X1550 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2008). The Radeon X1550 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 3000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Quadro FX 3000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon X1550 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	Radeon X1550	Quadro FX 3000
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-3%)	✅Leading raw performance (+3%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020))	🛑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	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The Quadro FX 3000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro FX 3000 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $49), it costs 69% less, resulting in a 236.4% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	Radeon X1550	Quadro FX 3000
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+236.4%)
Upfront Cost	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49)	✅More affordable ($15)

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 X1550 Benchmark Check

Quadro FX 3000 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon X1550 and Quadro FX 3000

Radeon X1550

The Radeon X1550 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 20 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1100 MHz to 1183 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 67 points. Launch price was $79.

Quadro FX 3000

The Quadro FX 3000 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: 69 points. Launch price was $3,499.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon X1550 scores 67 and the Quadro FX 3000 reaches 69 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon X1550 is built on GCN 4.0 while the Quadro FX 3000 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 14 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 512 (Radeon X1550) vs 240 (Quadro FX 3000). Raw compute: 1.211 TFLOPS (Radeon X1550) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 3000).

Feature	Radeon X1550	Quadro FX 3000
G3D Mark Score	67	69+3%
Architecture	GCN 4.0	Tesla 2.0
Process Node	14 nm	55 nm
Shading Units	512+113%	240
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.211 TFLOPS+95%	0.6221 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32+100%
TMUs	32	80+150%
L2 Cache	256 KB	256 KB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon X1550	Quadro FX 3000
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 X1550 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 3000 has 256 MB. The Radeon X1550 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.

Feature	Radeon X1550	Quadro FX 3000
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB+100%	0.25 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	256 KB	256 KB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 9_0c (Radeon X1550) vs 9_0a (Quadro FX 3000). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

Feature	Radeon X1550	Quadro FX 3000
DirectX	9_0c	9_0a
Max Displays	2	2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon X1550 draws 50W versus the Quadro FX 3000's 189W — a 116.3% difference. The Radeon X1550 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon X1550) vs 350W (Quadro FX 3000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 168mm vs 1mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.

Feature	Radeon X1550	Quadro FX 3000
TDP	50W-74%	189W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Length	168mm	1mm
Slots	1-50%	2
Perf/Watt	1.3+225%	0.4

💰

Value Analysis

The Radeon X1550 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the Quadro FX 3000 launched at $0 and now averages $15. The Quadro FX 3000 costs 69.4% less ($34 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 1.4 (Radeon X1550) vs 4.6 (Quadro FX 3000) — the Quadro FX 3000 offers 228.6% better value. The Radeon X1550 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2008).