Quadro FX 3500M vs FirePro M8900

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated1145
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.11
Power efficiencyno data1.22
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameBlackcombG71
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date12 April 2011 (13 years ago)1 March 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores96032
Core clock speed680 MHz575 MHz
Boost clock speedno data575 MHz
Number of transistors1,700 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate32.6413.80
Floating-point processing power1.306 TFLOPSno data
ROPs3216
TMUs4824

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargelarge
Bus supportn/ano data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-III
Form factorMXM-Bno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz600 MHz
Memory bandwidth115 GB/s38.4 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.2 (11_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.03.0
OpenGL4.42.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
VulkanN/AN/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 12 April 2011 1 March 2007
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 45 Watt

FirePro M8900 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3500M, on the other hand, has 66.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between FirePro M8900 and Quadro FX 3500M. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro M8900
FirePro M8900
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3500M
Quadro FX 3500M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 9 votes

Rate FirePro M8900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Quadro FX 3500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.