Quadro FX 350M vs ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureTeraScale (2005−2013)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameRV610G72
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date28 June 2007 (17 years ago)13 March 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 cores407
Core clock speed525 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speedno data450 MHz
Number of transistors180 million112 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate2.1001.800
Floating-point processing power0.042 TFLOPSno data
ROPs42
TMUs44

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR2GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount256 MB256 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed400 MHz450 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/s14.4 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX10.0 (10_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.03.0
OpenGL3.32.1
OpenCLN/AN/A
VulkanN/AN/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

ATI HD 2400 PRO 114
+159%
FX 350M 44

Pros & cons summary


Recency 28 June 2007 13 March 2006
Chip lithography 65 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 15 Watt

ATI HD 2400 PRO has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 38.5% more advanced lithography process.

FX 350M, on the other hand, has 33.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 2400 PRO and Quadro FX 350M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon HD 2400 PRO is a desktop card while Quadro FX 350M is a mobile 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.


ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO
Radeon HD 2400 PRO
NVIDIA Quadro FX 350M
Quadro FX 350M

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.


3.5 62 votes

Rate Radeon HD 2400 PRO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Quadro FX 350M 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.