Quadro FX 3500M vs FirePro W7170M

Place in the ranking	509	1145
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.11
Power efficiency	5.71	1.22
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code name	Amethyst	G71
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	2 October 2015 (9 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 cores	2048	32
Core clock speed	723 MHz	575 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	575 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	278 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	92.54	13.80
Floating-point processing power	2.961 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	128	24

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 size	large	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-III
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	600 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160.0 GB/s	38.4 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 Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model	6.3	3.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	2.0	N/A
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

W7170M 8.19
+937%

FX 3500M 0.79

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

W7170M 3161
+933%

FX 3500M 306

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

53
+960%

5−6

−960%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

20.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14
+333%

3−4

−333%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +300%	5−6 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Far Cry 5	18−20	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +980%	5−6 −980%
Hitman 3	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +292%	12−14 −292%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +286%	7−8 −286%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +83.9%	30−35 −83.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +300%	5−6 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Battlefield 5	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Far Cry 5	18−20	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +980%	5−6 −980%
Hitman 3	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +292%	12−14 −292%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +286%	7−8 −286%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	89 +790%	10−11 −790%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +83.9%	30−35 −83.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +300%	5−6 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Far Cry 5	18−20	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +980%	5−6 −980%
Hitman 3	16−18 +220%	5−6 −220%
Horizon Zero Dawn	45−50 +292%	12−14 −292%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27−30 +286%	7−8 −286%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 +130%	10−11 −130%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +83.9%	30−35 −83.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +967%	3−4 −967%
Hitman 3	12−14 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +1633%	3−4 −1633%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
+367%

3−4

−367%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7	0−1
Hitman 3	4−5	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +1400%	2−3 −1400%
Metro Exodus	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	10−11	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+300%

2−3

−300%

This is how W7170M and FX 3500M compete in popular games:

W7170M is 960% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the W7170M is 2200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, W7170M surpassed FX 3500M in all 35 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.19	0.79
Recency	2 October 2015	1 March 2007
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	45 Watt

W7170M has a 936.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3500M, on the other hand, has 122.2% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W7170M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500M in performance tests.

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