Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile vs Quadro FX 2500M

#ad 
Buy
Quadro FX 1500M Quadro FX 1600M Quadro FX 1700M Quadro FX 1800M Quadro FX 2500M Quadro FX 2700M Quadro FX 2800M Quadro FX 3500M Quadro FX 3600M Quadro FX 3700M Quadro FX 3800M
VS
#ad 
Buy
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile Refresh Quadro RTX 3000 X2 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 2500M and Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 2500M
2005
512 MB GDDR3, 45 Watt
0.49

RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms FX 2500M by a whopping 4520% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
FX 2500M FX 2500M
RTX 3000 Mobile RTX 3000

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1232227
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.8622.45
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG71TU106
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date29 September 2005 (19 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores322304
Core clock speed500 MHz945 MHz
Boost clock speed500 MHz1380 MHz
Number of transistors278 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate12.00198.7
Floating-point processing powerno data6.359 TFLOPS
ROPs1664
TMUs24144
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data36

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
InterfaceMXM-IIIPCIe 3.0 x16

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth38.4 GB/s448.0 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
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

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

VR Readyno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model3.06.5
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

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.

FX 2500M 0.49
RTX 3000 Mobile 22.64
+4520%

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.

FX 2500M 217
RTX 3000 Mobile 10116
+4562%

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 HD2−3
−4650%
95
+4650%
4K1−2
−8700%
88
+8700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p50.00no data
4K99.99no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−3300%
65−70
+3300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−5300%
50−55
+5300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−3300%
65−70
+3300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−5300%
50−55
+5300%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−2350%
95−100
+2350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1100%
95−100
+1100%
Valorant 27−30
−500%
160−170
+500%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−3300%
65−70
+3300%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−1424%
250−260
+1424%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−5300%
50−55
+5300%
Dota 2 10−12
−1100%
132
+1100%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−2350%
95−100
+2350%
Metro Exodus 0−1 55−60
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1100%
95−100
+1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−2625%
109
+2625%
Valorant 27−30
−500%
160−170
+500%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−5300%
50−55
+5300%
Dota 2 10−12
−1000%
121
+1000%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−2350%
95−100
+2350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1100%
95−100
+1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−1300%
56
+1300%
Valorant 27−30
−500%
160−170
+500%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−8550%
170−180
+8550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−3400%
170−180
+3400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 24−27
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−6300%
60−65
+6300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 40−45

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−5800%
55−60
+5800%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−207%
45−50
+207%
Valorant 3−4
−4700%
140−150
+4700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
−2800%
27−30
+2800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−1200%
24−27
+1200%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Dota 2 88
+0%
88
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

This is how FX 2500M and RTX 3000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3000 Mobile is 4650% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3000 Mobile is 8700% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3000 Mobile is 8550% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RTX 3000 Mobile is ahead in 30 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 30 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.49 22.64
Recency 29 September 2005 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 80 Watt

FX 2500M has 77.8% lower power consumption.

RTX 3000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 4520.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.

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 Quadro FX 2500M
Quadro FX 2500M
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile
Quadro RTX 3000
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

FX 2500M Quadro FX 2500M
vs
FX 880M Quadro FX 880M
RTX 3000 Mobile Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile
vs
RTX A2000 Mobile RTX A2000 Mobile
FX 2500M Quadro FX 2500M
vs
FX 1500M Quadro FX 1500M
GT 335M GeForce GT 335M
vs
NVS 5200M NVS 5200M
GT 335M GeForce GT 335M
vs
UHD Graphics 600 UHD Graphics 600
GT 330M GeForce GT 330M
vs
Go 7900 GS GeForce Go 7900 GS
GT 240M GeForce GT 240M
vs
HD Graphics 505 HD Graphics 505
GT 240M GeForce GT 240M
vs
RTX 5090 GeForce RTX 5090
8700M GT GeForce 8700M GT
vs
RTX 3060 Mobile GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile
Go 7900 GS GeForce Go 7900 GS
vs
Radeon 610M Radeon 610M
9600M GT GeForce 9600M GT
vs
FX 1500 Quadro FX 1500
FX 770M Quadro FX 770M
vs
NVS 320M Quadro NVS 320M
HD 6470M Radeon HD 6470M
vs
HD 6310 Radeon HD 6310

Community ratings

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

3 4 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 331 vote

Rate Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 2500M or Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.