Quadro FX 3000 vs Radeon PRO WX 3100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 3100 and Quadro FX 3000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

PRO WX 3100
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 65 Watt
6.63
+3583%

PRO WX 3100 outperforms FX 3000 by a whopping 3583% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5631402
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.33no data
Power efficiency7.10no data
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameLexaNV35
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date12 June 2017 (7 years ago)22 July 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 $203

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

PRO WX 3100 and FX 3000 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 cores512no data
Core clock speed925 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,200 million135 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Wattno data
Texture fill rate39.013.200
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPSno data
ROPs164
TMUs328

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 3.0 x8AGP 8x
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x Molex

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 typeGDDR5DDR
Maximum RAM amount4 GB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz425 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s27.2 GB/s
Shared memory-no 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 DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)9.0a
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.61.5 (2.1)
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/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. 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.

PRO WX 3100 6.63
+3583%
FX 3000 0.18

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.

PRO WX 3100 2559
+3609%
FX 3000 69

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 HD13-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p15.31no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9 0−1
Battlefield 5 18−20 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 14−16 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Hitman 3 12−14 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+3800%
1−2
−3800%
Metro Exodus 18−20 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+5100%
1−2
−5100%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9 0−1
Battlefield 5 18−20 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 14−16 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Hitman 3 12−14 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+3800%
1−2
−3800%
Metro Exodus 18−20 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+5100%
1−2
−5100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Hitman 3 12−14 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+3800%
1−2
−3800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+5100%
1−2
−5100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
Hitman 3 10−11 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16 0−1
Metro Exodus 6−7 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+4100%
1−2
−4100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 3−4 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20 0−1
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.63 0.18
Recency 12 June 2017 22 July 2003
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 130 nm

PRO WX 3100 has a 3583.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO WX 3100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3000 in performance tests.


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.


AMD Radeon PRO WX 3100
Radeon PRO WX 3100
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3000
Quadro FX 3000

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.


3.7 53 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 3100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3000 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.