Quadro 3000M vs GeForce MX130

Place in performance ranking	609	787
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.43	0.14
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2018)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	N16S-GTR	Fermi
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 January 2018 (6 years ago)	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$398.96
Current price	$899	$447 (1.1x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce MX130 has 921% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.

Detailed specifications

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	384	240
Core clock speed	1122 MHz	450 MHz
Boost clock speed	1242 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15-25 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	29.81	18.00
Floating-point performance	953.9 gflops	432.0 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce MX130 and Quadro 3000M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	DDR3, GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	5012 MHz	625 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40.1 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

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

no data

API compatibility

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	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	2.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GeForce MX130 4.79
+87.1%

Quadro 3000M 2.56

GeForce MX130 outperforms Quadro 3000M by 87% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GeForce MX130 1851
+86.8%

Quadro 3000M 991

GeForce MX130 outperforms Quadro 3000M by 87% in Passmark.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GeForce MX130 2875
+86.8%

Quadro 3000M 1539

GeForce MX130 outperforms Quadro 3000M by 87% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GeForce MX130 11968
+50.7%

Quadro 3000M 7941

GeForce MX130 outperforms Quadro 3000M by 51% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GeForce MX130 6497
+74.9%

Quadro 3000M 3715

GeForce MX130 outperforms Quadro 3000M by 75% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

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

−132%

44
+132%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

−25%

5−6
+25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Far Cry 5	14 +40%	10−11 −40%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%
Hitman 3	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	25 +66.7%	14−16 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	22 +83.3%	12−14 −83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	11 +450%	2−3 −450%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Far Cry 5	26 +160%	10−11 −160%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%
Hitman 3	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20 +33.3%	14−16 −33.3%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8 −50%	12−14 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +133%	6−7 −133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Far Cry 5	8 −25%	10−11 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%
Horizon Zero Dawn	13 −15.4%	14−16 +15.4%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+117%

6−7

−117%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Hitman 3	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	12−14 +44.4%	9−10 −44.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+25%

4−5

−25%

This is how GeForce MX130 and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:

Quadro 3000M is 132% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX130 is 900% faster.
in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro 3000M is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX130 is ahead in 51 test (93%)
Quadro 3000M is ahead in 4 tests (7%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.79	2.56
Recency	1 January 2018	22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	75 Watt