NVIDIA Quadro FX 3400

NVIDIA Quadro FX 3400 is a workstation graphics card from the Curie generation, built on a 130 nm process at TSMC with 222 million transistors on a 287 mm² die. It was released in mid-2004 as part of the Quadro FX x400 series, positioned between the Rankine and Tesla-based predecessors and successors. The card is now end-of-life, and its benchmark percentile versus all GPUs sits at exactly 50, indicating it lands at the midpoint of the historical performance distribution. With no benchmark scores or nearest rivals listed in the available data, the analysis below relies strictly on the architectural and specification details provided.

Benchmark Performance

The Quadro FX 3400 has no recorded benchmark scores, and its average benchmark score is listed as zero. Consequently, there are no percentage deltas to compute against any competing products, and the nearestRivals field is empty. The only quantitative performance indicator available is the 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, which places this card at the median of the entire GPU landscape, not outstanding, not obsolete, but squarely average in a historical context.

In terms of raw throughput, the card delivers a pixel rate of 4.200 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 4.200 GTexel/s, both figures identical to each other. This symmetry suggests a balanced design where pixel and texture processing operate at equal rates, typical of mid-range workstation parts from that era. The 12 texture mapping units and 12 raster output units work in lockstep to achieve these rates, and the 256-bit memory bus provides the data path necessary to feed these units. Without actual benchmark results, the practical interpretation is that this card was designed for consistent, predictable throughput rather than peak performance, and the 50th percentile ranking reinforces that it sits in the middle of the pack historically.

Given the absence of rival scores, any claim about relative performance superiority or deficit cannot be substantiated. The data simply shows a card with moderate fill rates and a median percentile position, meaning it would have been a reasonable choice for standard workstation tasks of its time, but not a leader in any performance category.

Power and Cooling

The Quadro FX 3400 has a thermal design power of 101 W, which is a modest figure for a workstation card from the mid-2000s. This TDP level implies that cooling requirements are manageable, and the card occupies a single slot, indicating a low-profile cooling solution is sufficient. The power connector requirement is a single 6-pin input, and the suggested power supply unit rating is 300 W, which is relatively low by modern standards but appropriate for the hardware of that period.

The 101 W TDP also suggests that the card does not demand excessive power delivery, and a 300 W PSU recommendation means it can be integrated into systems with modest power budgets. The single-slot design is a practical advantage for dense workstation configurations where space is at a premium, and the 6-pin connector is a standard interface that was widely supported by power supplies of that generation. The card's dimensions, 226 mm in length and 111 mm in height, further indicate a compact physical footprint that fits standard workstation chassis without issue. For cooling, the data does not specify whether the solution is active or passive, but the TDP and slot width together imply a straightforward thermal management approach.

How It Compares

The nearestRivals field is empty, so there are no direct competitor cards to analyze against the Quadro FX 3400. This absence of comparative data means that no statements can be made about performance advantages or disadvantages relative to specific alternative products. In a broader sense, the 50th percentile ranking places it in the middle of all GPUs, but without named rivals, the comparison stops there.

The predecessor and successor are identified as Quadro FX Rankine and Quadro FX Tesla, respectively, which indicates the generational lineage. However, no specifications or performance scores are provided for these cards, so a quantitative comparison is impossible. The Quadro FX 3400 sits between these two architectures, and the lack of benchmark data for all three prevents any assessment of generational improvements. The card's architecture is Curie, which is distinct from both the earlier Rankine and later Tesla architectures, but the performance implications of this architectural shift cannot be quantified from the given facts.

Who Should Consider It

Given the absence of benchmark scores, recommendations must be inferred from the card's specifications and its median percentile ranking. The 256 MB of GDDR3 memory and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth suggest that this card was suited for 3D modeling and CAD applications at lower resolutions, where texture sizes and frame buffers were smaller than what modern workloads demand. The 50th percentile position implies it handled standard tasks adequately but would struggle with high-resolution textures or complex scenes that push memory capacity.

The pixel rate of 4.200 GPixel/s and texture rate of 4.200 GTexel/s indicate that the card can process a moderate number of pixels and texels per second, which aligns with typical workstation usage at resolutions like 1280x1024 or 1600x1200. For users working with 2D drafting, light 3D modeling, or visualization of moderately complex scenes, this card would have been sufficient. However, for high-resolution rendering or simulation workloads that demand large memory pools, the 256 MB capacity would quickly become a bottleneck. The data suggests this card is best suited for entry-level to mid-range professional tasks rather than high-end compute or rendering.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The Quadro FX 3400 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores, as these hardware features were not part of the Curie architecture. The card's API support includes DirectX 9.0c with shader model 9_3, OpenGL 2.0 with full support and OpenGL 2.1 with partial support, and no Vulkan support. This API set reflects the software ecosystem of its 2004 release period, where DirectX 9 was the standard for gaming and professional applications, and OpenGL 2.0 provided the foundation for workstation graphics.

The absence of ray tracing and tensor cores means that any workload requiring these features, such as real-time ray tracing, AI-accelerated denoising, or machine learning inference, is entirely unsupported. The card's feature set is limited to conventional rasterization and fixed-function pipeline operations, which is expected for a GPU of this vintage. The DirectX 9.0c support allows compatibility with a wide range of applications from that era, while the partial OpenGL 2.1 support indicates some modern extensions were available but not fully implemented. For users running legacy software that relies on DirectX 9 or OpenGL 2.0, this card provides functional compatibility, but it offers no path forward for modern graphics APIs or compute workloads.

Memory Subsystem

The Quadro FX 3400 is equipped with 256 MB of GDDR3 memory, which was a standard capacity for workstation cards in 2004. The memory operates at 450 MHz with an effective data rate of 900 Mbps, and the 256-bit bus width yields a total bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. This configuration provides a balanced memory subsystem that aligns with the card's pixel and texture rates.

At high resolutions, the 256 MB capacity is the primary limiting factor. Modern 3D scenes with high-resolution textures can easily exceed this amount of video memory, leading to texture thrashing or reduced performance. The 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while adequate for the pixel and texture rates, would struggle to feed a GPU if more memory were available. The 256-bit bus width is a positive aspect, as it allows for efficient data transfer between the GPU and memory, but the overall capacity restricts the card to lower-resolution workloads. For 2D desktop applications or 3D scenes with modest texture requirements, the memory subsystem is sufficient, but for high-resolution rendering or multi-monitor setups with large frame buffers, the 256 MB limit becomes a significant constraint. The data indicates that this card was designed for a time when 256 MB was considered ample, but by modern standards, it is a severe bottleneck.