Quadro FX 3500 vs GeForce GTX 260

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260 with Quadro FX 3500, including specs and performance data.

GTX 260
2008
896 MB GDDR3, 182 Watt
3.15
+370%

GTX 260 outperforms FX 3500 by a whopping 370% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7471178
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.14no data
Power efficiency1.200.58
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGT200G71
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date16 June 2008 (16 years ago)22 May 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 $1,599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 260 and FX 3500 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores192no data
Core clock speed576 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)182 Watt80 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate36.869.000
Floating-point processing power0.4769 TFLOPSno data
ROPs2816
TMUs6420

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length267 mm173 mm
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount896 MB256 MB
Memory bus width448 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed999 MHz660 MHz
Memory bandwidth111.9 GB/s42.24 GB/s

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 ConnectorsDual Link DVIHDTV2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.03.0
OpenGL2.12.1
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

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.

GTX 260 3.15
+370%
FX 3500 0.67

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.

GTX 260 1215
+369%
FX 3500 259

Gaming performance

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.15 0.67
Recency 16 June 2008 22 May 2006
Maximum RAM amount 896 MB 256 MB
Chip lithography 65 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 182 Watt 80 Watt

GTX 260 has a 370.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 250% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 38.5% more advanced lithography process.

FX 3500, on the other hand, has 127.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 3500 is a workstation one.


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.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
GeForce GTX 260
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3500
Quadro FX 3500

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.


3.8 599 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 9 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3500 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.