Quadro FX 3000 vs Quadro 400

Place in the ranking	1261	1400
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	no data
Power efficiency	0.83	no data
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code name	GT216	NV35
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	5 April 2011 (13 years ago)	22 July 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$169	$203

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 400 and FX 3000 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 cores	48	no data
Core clock speed	450 MHz	400 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	135 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	32 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	7.200	3.200
Floating-point processing power	0.108 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	8

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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	AGP 8x
Length	163 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x Molex

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	DDR3	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	256 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	770 MHz	425 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.32 GB/s	27.2 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 Connectors

1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort

2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	9.0a
Shader Model	4.1	no data
OpenGL	3.3	1.5 (2.1)
OpenCL	1.1	N/A
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	1.2	-

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.

Quadro 400 0.38
+111%

FX 3000 0.18

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.

Quadro 400 148
+114%

FX 3000 69

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	0.38	0.18
Recency	5 April 2011	22 July 2003
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	256 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	130 nm

Quadro 400 has a 111.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 225% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro 400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3000 in performance tests.

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