FirePro V3900 vs Quadro 3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 3000M with FirePro V3900, including specs and performance data.
3000M outperforms V3900 by an impressive 60% 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 | 901 | 1033 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | 0.14 |
| Power efficiency | 2.49 | 2.34 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | Turks |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (15 years ago) | 7 February 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $398.96 | $119 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
FirePro V3900 has 27% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.
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 | 240 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 199 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.00 | 15.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | 0.624 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 48 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 256 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 | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 2.1 x16 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | half height / half length |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 28 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 | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort 1.1 |
| DisplayPort count | no data | 1 |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
| HD сomponent video output | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| 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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 51
+70%
| 30−35
−70%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.82
−97.2%
| 3.97
+97.2%
|
- FirePro V3900 has 97% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+74.1%
|
27−30
−74.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
This is how Quadro 3000M and FirePro V3900 compete in popular games:
- Quadro 3000M is 70% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.41 | 1.51 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 7 February 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 199 Watt |
Quadro 3000M has a 60% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 165% lower power consumption.
FirePro V3900, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months.
The Quadro 3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro V3900 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while FirePro V3900 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.
