FirePro W7000 vs Quadro M3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M3000M with FirePro W7000, including specs and performance data.
M3000M outperforms W7000 by a significant 28% 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 | 427 | 491 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.90 |
| Power efficiency | 13.68 | 5.35 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 August 2015 (11 years ago) | 13 June 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $899 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 1,024 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 1050 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 67.20 | 76.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.15 TFLOPS | 2.432 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 242 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 153.6 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 | 4x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
| DisplayPort count | no data | 4 |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
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.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & 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 | 60
+33.3%
| 45−50
−33.3%
|
| 4K | 25
+38.9%
| 18−20
−38.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 19.98 |
| 4K | no data | 49.94 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+34.5%
|
55−60
−34.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+28.9%
|
45−50
−28.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+34.5%
|
55−60
−34.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+28.3%
|
60−65
−28.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+42.5%
|
40−45
−42.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+31.8%
|
85−90
−31.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+28.9%
|
45−50
−28.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+34.5%
|
55−60
−34.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+32.1%
|
140−150
−32.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+35.4%
|
65−70
−35.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+28.3%
|
60−65
−28.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+42.5%
|
40−45
−42.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+31.8%
|
85−90
−31.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+28.9%
|
45−50
−28.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+35.4%
|
65−70
−35.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+42.5%
|
40−45
−42.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+31.8%
|
85−90
−31.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+28.3%
|
60−65
−28.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−105
+33.3%
|
75−80
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
+33.3%
|
75−80
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+32.6%
|
95−100
−32.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+37%
|
27−30
−37%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+29.6%
|
27−30
−29.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+28%
|
50−55
−28%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
This is how M3000M and FirePro W7000 compete in popular games:
- M3000M is 33% faster in 1080p
- M3000M is 39% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.26 | 10.37 |
| Recency | 18 August 2015 | 13 June 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 350 Watt |
M3000M has a 28% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 367% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W7000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while FirePro W7000 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.
