Quadro FX 3500 vs Radeon RX 550 Mobile

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 550 Mobile with Quadro FX 3500, including specs and performance data.

RX 550 Mobile
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
6.96
+939%

RX 550 Mobile outperforms FX 3500 by a whopping 939% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5521178
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.47no data
Power efficiency9.640.58
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameLexaG71
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date2 July 2017 (7 years ago)22 May 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79.99 $1,599

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 550 Mobile and FX 3500 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 cores640no data
Core clock speed1100 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1287 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,200 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate51.489.000
Floating-point processing power1.647 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1616
TMUs4020

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data173 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 amount2 GB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz660 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s42.24 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

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.43.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/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 HD16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.001599.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8 0−1
Battlefield 5 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1050%
4−5
−1050%
Hitman 3 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+1267%
3−4
−1267%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+960%
5−6
−960%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8 0−1
Battlefield 5 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1050%
4−5
−1050%
Hitman 3 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+1267%
3−4
−1267%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+960%
5−6
−960%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1050%
4−5
−1050%
Hitman 3 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+1267%
3−4
−1267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Hitman 3 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+1000%
4−5
−1000%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6 0−1
Hitman 3 3−4 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
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 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1

This is how RX 550 Mobile and FX 3500 compete in popular games:

  • RX 550 Mobile is 1500% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.96 0.67
Recency 2 July 2017 22 May 2006
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 80 Watt

RX 550 Mobile has a 938.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 60% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 550 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3500 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 550 Mobile is a notebook card while Quadro FX 3500 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.


AMD Radeon RX 550 Mobile
Radeon RX 550 Mobile
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3500
Quadro FX 3500

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.


3.1 34 votes

Rate Radeon RX 550 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 9 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3500 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.