Quadro FX 550 vs Quadro P3000 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P3000 Mobile with Quadro FX 550, including specs and performance data.

P3000 Mobile
2017
6 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
16.83
+10419%

P3000 Mobile outperforms FX 550 by a whopping 10419% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3221414
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency15.380.37
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGP104NV43
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date11 January 2017 (7 years ago)20 April 2006 (18 years ago)

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 cores1280no data
Core clock speed1088 MHz360 MHz
Boost clock speed1215 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million146 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate97.202.880
Floating-point processing power3.11 TFLOPSno data
ROPs484
TMUs808

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-B (3.0)PCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data198 mm
Widthno data1-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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount6 GB128 MB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1753 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth168 GB/s12.8 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 outputs2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Display Port1.4no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Stereo+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX129.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.43.0
OpenGL4.52.0 (full) 2.1 (partial)
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA6.1-

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.

P3000 Mobile 16.83
+10419%
FX 550 0.16

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.

P3000 Mobile 6482
+10189%
FX 550 63

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 HD640−1
4K28-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35 0−1
Battlefield 5 60−65 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 0−1
Far Cry 5 45−50 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+11900%
1−2
−11900%
Hitman 3 35−40 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95 0−1
Metro Exodus 65−70 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35 0−1
Battlefield 5 60−65 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 0−1
Far Cry 5 45−50 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+11900%
1−2
−11900%
Hitman 3 35−40 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95 0−1
Metro Exodus 65−70 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 81 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 0−1
Far Cry 5 45−50 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+11900%
1−2
−11900%
Hitman 3 35−40 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 21−24 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+10600%
1−2
−10600%
Hitman 3 21−24 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40 0−1
Metro Exodus 35−40 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+11400%
1−2
−11400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16 0−1
Hitman 3 14−16 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−105 0−1
Metro Exodus 20−22 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 24−27 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.83 0.16
Recency 11 January 2017 20 April 2006
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 16 nm 110 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 30 Watt

P3000 Mobile has a 10418.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 587.5% more advanced lithography process.

FX 550, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 550 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while Quadro FX 550 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.


NVIDIA Quadro P3000 Mobile
Quadro P3000 Mobile
NVIDIA Quadro FX 550
Quadro FX 550

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.


3.9 159 votes

Rate Quadro P3000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 6 votes

Rate Quadro FX 550 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.