Quadro T2000 Mobile vs GRID M3-3020

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GRID M3-3020 GRID M10-8Q GRID M40 NVS 810 K620 K1200 K2200 Tesla M10
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
T400 Mobile T500 Mobile T600 Mobile T1000 Mobile T1000 Max-Q T1200 Max-Q T1200 Mobile T2000 Mobile T2000 Max-Q T500 Max-Q T550 Mobile T600 Max-Q

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GRID M3-3020 with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

GRID M3-3020
2016
4 GB GDDR5
6.68

T2000 Mobile outperforms M3-3020 by a whopping 170% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
GRID M3-3020 GRID M3-3020
T2000 Mobile T2000 Mobile

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking580314
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data24.24
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM107TU117
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date18 May 2016 (9 years ago)27 May 2019 (6 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 cores6401024
Core clock speed1033 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speed1306 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data60 Watt
Texture fill rate52.24114.2
Floating-point processing power1.672 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs4064
L1 Cache320 KB1 MB
L2 Cache2 MB1024 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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno data

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 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1300 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth83.2 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA5.07.5

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 6.68 18.06
Recency 18 May 2016 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm

T2000 Mobile has a 170.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID M3-3020 in performance tests.

Be aware that GRID M3-3020 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro T2000 Mobile 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
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
Quadro T2000 Mobile
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
T2000 Mobile Quadro T2000 Mobile
vs
Quadro M5500 Quadro M5500
GRID M3-3020 GRID M3-3020
vs
FirePro V7900 FirePro V7900
ATI HD 2400 HD 2400
vs
RX Vega 11 RX Vega 11
RX 7900M RX 7900M
vs
HD 7950 Monica BIOS 2 HD 7950 Monica BIOS 2
RTX 5070 Ti RTX 5070 Ti
vs
HD 7950 Monica BIOS 2 HD 7950 Monica BIOS 2
RTX 4070 Ti SUPER RTX 4070 Ti SUPER
vs
Quadro GV100 GV100
T2000 Mobile T2000 Mobile
vs
GRID M10-8Q GRID M10-8Q
RTX 5000 RTX 5000
vs
GRID M60-8Q GRID M60-8Q
Pro Vega 48 Pro Vega 48
vs
Pro WX 4170 Mobile Pro WX 4170 Mobile
Graphics 448SP Graphics 448SP
vs
P102-100 P102 100
GT 430 GT 430
vs
R7 350 R7 350
GeForce MX330 MX330
vs
RX 580 OEM RX 580 OEM

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
3.7 475 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Mobile 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 Quadro T2000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.