NVS 3100M vs Quadro FX 3500M

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3500M and NVS 3100M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 3500M
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 45 Watt
0.68
+47.8%

FX 3500M outperforms NVS 3100M by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11591240
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.11no data
Power efficiency1.192.60
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameG71GT218
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 March 2007 (18 years ago)7 January 2010 (15 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 cores3216
Core clock speed575 MHz606 MHz
Boost clock speed575 MHzno data
Number of transistors278 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate13.804.848
Floating-point processing powerno data0.04698 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs248

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-IIIPCIe 2.0 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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidth38.4 GB/s12.64 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

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model3.04.1
OpenGL2.13.3
OpenCLN/A1.1
VulkanN/AN/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.

FX 3500M 0.68
+47.8%
NVS 3100M 0.46

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 3500M 306
+50%
NVS 3100M 204

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Valorant 30−33
+7.1%
27−30
−7.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 20−22
+25%
16−18
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+7.1%
27−30
−7.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+7.1%
27−30
−7.1%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 3500M is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 3500M is ahead in 23 tests (77%)
  • there's a draw in 7 tests (23%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.68 0.46
Recency 1 March 2007 7 January 2010
Chip lithography 90 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 14 Watt

FX 3500M has a 47.8% higher aggregate performance score.

NVS 3100M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 125% more advanced lithography process, and 221.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 3500M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M 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 3500M
Quadro FX 3500M
NVIDIA NVS 3100M
NVS 3100M

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Quadro FX 3500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 138 votes

Rate NVS 3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3500M or NVS 3100M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.