GRID M3-3020 vs GeForce GTX 960M
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GTX 960M outperforms GRID M3-3020 by 15% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 455 | 490 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 1.44 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | N16P-GX | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 March 2015 (9 years ago) | 18 May 2016 (7 years ago) |
| Current price | $799 | no data |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 640 |
| CUDA cores | 640 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1096 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1202 MHz | 1306 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 | 52.24 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,505 gflops | 1,672 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 960M and GRID M3-3020 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 5200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 83.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Video outputs and ports
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | no data |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | no data |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | no data |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
| BatteryBoost | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 5.0 |
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:
| 900p | 95
+18.8%
| 80−85
−18.8%
|
| Full HD | 36
+20%
| 30−35
−20%
|
| 1440p | 15
+25%
| 12−14
−25%
|
| 4K | 13
+30%
| 10−12
−30%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 25
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 27
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 19
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 25
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 19
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 11
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 23
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 25
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 11
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 17
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 15
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how GTX 960M and GRID M3-3020 compete in popular games:
- GTX 960M is 18.8% faster than GRID M3-3020 in 900p
- GTX 960M is 20% faster than GRID M3-3020 in 1080p
- GTX 960M is 25% faster than GRID M3-3020 in 1440p
- GTX 960M is 30% faster than GRID M3-3020 in 4K
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 8.78 | 7.63 |
| Recency | 12 March 2015 | 18 May 2016 |
The GeForce GTX 960M is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID M3-3020 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 960M is a notebook card while GRID M3-3020 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
