FirePro M4000 vs GRID M3-3020

GRID M3-3020 GRID M10-8Q GRID M40 NVS 810 Quadro K620 Quadro K1200 Quadro K2200 Tesla M10
VS
FirePro M4000 FirePro M4100 FirePro M4150 FirePro M4170

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GRID M3-3020 with FirePro M4000, including specs and performance data.

GRID M3-3020
2016
4 GB GDDR5
6.61
+85.2%

GRID M3-3020 outperforms M4000 by an impressive 85% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

GRID M3-3020 GRID M3-3020
FirePro M4000 FirePro M4000

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking541703
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data8.60
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGM107Chelsea
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date18 May 2016 (8 years ago)27 June 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores640512
Core clock speed1033 MHz675 MHz
Boost clock speed1306 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data33 Watt
Texture fill rate52.2421.60
Floating-point processing power1.672 TFLOPS0.6912 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4032

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno datan/a
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorno dataMXM-A
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1300 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth83.2 GB/s72 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
StereoOutput3D-+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA5.0-

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 HD45−50
+66.7%
27
−66.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how GRID M3-3020 and FirePro M4000 compete in popular games:

  • GRID M3-3020 is 67% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 6.61 3.57
Recency 18 May 2016 27 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB

GRID M3-3020 has a 85.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The GRID M3-3020 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that GRID M3-3020 is a workstation card while FirePro M4000 is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVIDIA GRID M3-3020
GRID M3-3020
AMD FirePro M4000
FirePro M4000
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GRID M3-3020 GRID M3 3020
vs
FirePro W5000 FirePro W5000
FirePro M4000 FirePro M4000
vs
Quadro P500 Quadro P500
GRID M3-3020 GRID M3 3020
vs
FirePro W5100 FirePro W5100
ATI 3000 IGP Radeon 3000 IGP
vs
RX Vega 11 RX Vega 11
R5 M250 Radeon R5 M250
vs
RX Vega 3 RX Vega 3
T600 T600
vs
HD 7950 Monica BIOS 1 HD 7950 Monica BIOS 1
RX 7600 Radeon RX 7600
vs
Quadro GV100 Quadro GV100
Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile
vs
Quadro P620 Quadro P620
RX 7600 XT Radeon RX 7600 XT
vs
Radeon 530X Radeon 530X
RX 6700 XT Radeon RX 6700 XT
vs
NX-SoC NX SoC
R5 340X OEM Radeon R5 340X OEM
vs
R7 M365X R7 M365X
GT 750M Mac Edition GeForce GT 750M Mac Edition
vs
R7 M365X R7 M365X
GTX 470 X2 GeForce GTX 470 X2
vs
R7 M365X R7 M365X

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

5 1 vote

Rate GRID M3-3020 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 39 votes

Rate FirePro M4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GRID M3-3020 or FirePro M4000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.