Quadro 3000M vs GeForce 9800M GTX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9800M GTX with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.
3000M outperforms 9800M by a whopping 121% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1144 | 901 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | 1.12 | 2.49 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | G92 | GF104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 July 2008 (18 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $328.50 | $398.96 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Quadro 3000M has 267% better value for money than 9800M GTX.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 112 | 240 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 112 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.00 | 18.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.28 TFLOPS | 0.432 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 420 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 512 KB |
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 size | large | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 21−24
−143%
| 51
+143%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 15.64
−100%
| 7.82
+100%
|
- Quadro 3000M has 100% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−35.5%
|
40−45
+35.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−80.8%
|
45−50
+80.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−35.5%
|
40−45
+35.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−35.5%
|
40−45
+35.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−109%
|
21−24
+109%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Palworld | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how 9800M GTX and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 3000M is 143% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro 3000M is 567% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro 3000M performs better in 40 tests (82%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (18%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.09 | 2.41 |
| Recency | 15 July 2008 | 22 February 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
Quadro 3000M has a 121% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 63% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro 3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800M GTX in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 9800M GTX is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
