Quadro FX 350 vs Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) with Quadro FX 350, including specs and performance data.
R3 (Mullins/Beema) outperforms FX 350 by a whopping 279% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1155 | 1391 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.72 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Beema/Mullins | G72 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (10 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 cores | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 686 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 112 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 21 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 2.200 |
| ROPs | no data | 2 |
| TMUs | no data | 4 |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 type | no data | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 405 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 6.48 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 Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 1x VGA |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | no data | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 HD | 15
+400%
| 3−4
−400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how R3 (Mullins/Beema) and FX 350 compete in popular games:
- R3 (Mullins/Beema) is 400% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.72 | 0.19 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 20 April 2006 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
R3 (Mullins/Beema) has a 278.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 350 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) is a notebook card while Quadro FX 350 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
