GeForce 9800 GTX vs Quadro M3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M3000M with GeForce 9800 GTX, including specs and performance data.
M3000M outperforms 9800 GTX by a whopping 617% 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 | 429 | 976 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.09 |
| Power efficiency | 13.68 | 1.02 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | G92 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 August 2015 (11 years ago) | 28 March 2008 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $299 |
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 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 1050 MHz | 675 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 140 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 67.20 | 43.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.15 TFLOPS | 0.4321 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 384 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 64 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 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 70.4 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 | HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | Via Adapter |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
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 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| 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.
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
+650%
| 8−9
−650%
|
| 4K | 25
+733%
| 3−4
−733%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 37.38 |
| 4K | no data | 99.67 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+640%
|
10−11
−640%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+640%
|
10−11
−640%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+670%
|
10−11
−670%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+714%
|
7−8
−714%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+700%
|
14−16
−700%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+640%
|
10−11
−640%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+671%
|
24−27
−671%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+633%
|
12−14
−633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+670%
|
10−11
−670%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+714%
|
7−8
−714%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 49
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+700%
|
14−16
−700%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+633%
|
12−14
−633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+714%
|
7−8
−714%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+700%
|
14−16
−700%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+670%
|
10−11
−670%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−105
+733%
|
12−14
−733%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
+733%
|
12−14
−733%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+688%
|
16−18
−688%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+700%
|
8−9
−700%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
This is how M3000M and 9800 GTX compete in popular games:
- M3000M is 650% faster in 1080p
- M3000M is 733% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.26 | 1.85 |
| Recency | 18 August 2015 | 28 March 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 140 Watt |
M3000M has a 617% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132% more advanced lithography process, and 87% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9800 GTX in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce 9800 GTX is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
