Quadro 3000M vs GeForce GTX 285

Place in the ranking	698	819
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.31	0.24
Power efficiency	1.34	2.40
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GT200B	GF104
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 December 2008 (15 years ago)	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$359	$398.96

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 285 has 29% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.

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 cores	240	240
Core clock speed	648 MHz	450 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	51.84	18.00
Floating-point processing power	0.7085 TFLOPS	0.432 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	80	40

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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	267 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	no data
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	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1242 MHz	625 MHz
Memory bandwidth	159.0 GB/s	80 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 Connectors	HDTVTwo Dual Link DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)

128bit

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	2.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 285 3.92
+51.9%

Quadro 3000M 2.58

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.

GTX 285 1513
+52.1%

Quadro 3000M 995

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

75−80
+47.1%

−47.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.79

7.82

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

This is how GTX 285 and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:

GTX 285 is 47% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.92	2.58
Recency	23 December 2008	22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	204 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 285 has a 51.9% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro 3000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 172% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 285 is a desktop card while Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.