Quadro FX 3500 vs Iris Graphics 540

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Graphics 540 with Quadro FX 3500, including specs and performance data.

Iris Graphics 540
2015
15 Watt
3.27
+388%

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms FX 3500 by a whopping 388% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7381175
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency15.160.58
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameSkylake GT3eG71
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)22 May 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,599

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 cores384no data
Core clock speed300 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate48.009.000
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPSno data
ROPs616
TMUs4820

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data173 mm
WidthIGP1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared256 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared660 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data42.24 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent2x DVI, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.43.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL3.0N/A
Vulkan1.3N/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.

Iris Graphics 540 3.27
+388%
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.

Iris Graphics 540 1261
+387%
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.

Average FPS across all PC games

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

Full HD20
+400%
4−5
−400%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+457%
7−8
−457%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+467%
3−4
−467%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+457%
7−8
−457%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+457%
7−8
−457%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

This is how Iris Graphics 540 and FX 3500 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Graphics 540 is 400% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.27 0.67
Recency 1 September 2015 22 May 2006
Chip lithography 14 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 80 Watt

Iris Graphics 540 has a 388.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 433.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Graphics 540 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Graphics 540 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.


Intel Iris Graphics 540
Iris Graphics 540
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.


3.5 92 votes

Rate Iris Graphics 540 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.