Radeon RX 5700 XT vs Quadro FX 3000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3000 with Radeon RX 5700 XT, including specs and performance data.

FX 3000
2003
256 MB DDR
0.17

RX 5700 XT outperforms FX 3000 by a whopping 24288% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking141492
Place by popularitynot in top-10041
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data46.15
Power efficiencyno data13.12
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameNV35Navi 10
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date22 July 2003 (21 year ago)7 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$203 $399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

FX 3000 and RX 5700 XT 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 coresno data2560
Core clock speed400 MHz1605 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1905 MHz
Number of transistors135 million10,300 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data225 Watt
Texture fill rate3.200304.8
Floating-point processing powerno data9.754 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8160

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).

InterfaceAGP 8xPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data272 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x Molex1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeDDRGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed425 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth27.2 GB/s448.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

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

VR Readyno data+
Multi Monitorno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX9.0a12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)4.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/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.

FX 3000 0.17
RX 5700 XT 41.46
+24288%

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 3000 69
RX 5700 XT 16462
+23758%

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 HD0−1127
1440p-0−177
4K-0−148

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.14
1440pno data5.18
4Kno data8.31

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 93
+0%
93
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 78
+0%
78
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 93
+0%
93
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 76
+0%
76
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 82
+0%
82
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 234
+0%
234
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 130
+0%
130
+0%
Metro Exodus 156
+0%
156
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 115
+0%
115
+0%
Valorant 190
+0%
190
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 194
+0%
194
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 64
+0%
64
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 72
+0%
72
+0%
Dota 2 127
+0%
127
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Fortnite 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 193
+0%
193
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 110
+0%
110
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 145
+0%
145
+0%
Metro Exodus 111
+0%
111
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 246
+0%
246
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 66
+0%
66
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 112
+0%
112
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 81
+0%
81
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 57
+0%
57
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 63
+0%
63
+0%
Dota 2 103
+0%
103
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 171
+0%
171
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 104
+0%
104
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Valorant 159
+0%
159
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Dota 2 79
+0%
79
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 79
+0%
79
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 42
+0%
42
+0%
World of Tanks 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 80
+0%
80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%
Far Cry 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 119
+0%
119
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 72
+0%
72
+0%
Metro Exodus 104
+0%
104
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 119
+0%
119
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Dota 2 79
+0%
79
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 79
+0%
79
+0%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 144
+0%
144
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27
+0%
27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 79
+0%
79
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8
+0%
8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+0%
17
+0%
Dota 2 93
+0%
93
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 71
+0%
71
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 37
+0%
37
+0%
Valorant 62
+0%
62
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.17 41.46
Recency 22 July 2003 7 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 7 nm

RX 5700 XT has a 24288.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1757.1% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 5700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 5700 XT is a desktop one.

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 3000
Quadro FX 3000
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
Radeon RX 5700 XT

Other comparisons

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 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 8364 votes

Rate Radeon RX 5700 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3000 or Radeon RX 5700 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.