Quadro FX 5600 vs Radeon R7 250

Place in the ranking	799	1013
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.10	0.01
Power efficiency	2.91	0.55
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Oland	G80
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	5 March 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$89	$2,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 250 has 900% better value for money than FX 5600.

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	384	128
Core clock speed	no data	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	950 million	681 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	171 Watt
Texture fill rate	25.20	38.40
Floating-point processing power	0.8064 TFLOPS	0.3456 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	24
TMUs	24	32

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	168 mm	254 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	N/A	2x 6-pin

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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1536 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	1150 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	76.8 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA	2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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.

R7 250 2.74
+101%

FX 5600 1.36

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.

R7 250 1058
+102%

FX 5600 525

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

20
+122%

9−10

−122%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.45

333.22

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+150%

2−3

−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Hitman 3	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +111%	18−20 −111%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Hitman 3	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +111%	18−20 −111%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Hitman 3	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +111%	18−20 −111%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+133%

3−4

−133%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +129%	7−8 −129%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+200%

2−3

−200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+300%

1−2

−300%

This is how R7 250 and FX 5600 compete in popular games:

R7 250 is 122% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.74	1.36
Recency	8 October 2013	5 March 2007
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1536 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	171 Watt

R7 250 has a 101.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 128% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 5600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 5600 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.