Quadro 3000M vs GeForce MX350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX350 with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.
MX350 outperforms 3000M by a whopping 183% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 547 | 831 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.26 |
| Power efficiency | 25.00 | 2.36 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | GF104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 10 February 2020 (5 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $398.96 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 640 | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 747 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 937 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 29.98 | 18.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.199 TFLOPS | 0.432 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 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 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 56.06 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 | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 27
−88.9%
| 51
+88.9%
|
| 1440p | 31
+210%
| 10−12
−210%
|
| 4K | 26
+189%
| 9−10
−189%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 7.82 |
| 1440p | no data | 39.90 |
| 4K | no data | 44.33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 31
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+583%
|
12−14
−583%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Valorant | 129
+200%
|
40−45
−200%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120
+155%
|
45−50
−155%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 83
+232%
|
24−27
−232%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Fortnite | 43
+258%
|
12−14
−258%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Valorant | 116
+170%
|
40−45
−170%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24
+243%
|
7−8
−243%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 76
+204%
|
24−27
−204%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 19
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+72.1%
|
40−45
−72.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+212%
|
16−18
−212%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+271%
|
21−24
−271%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+20%
|
14−16
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GeForce MX350 and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 3000M is 89% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX350 is 210% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX350 is 189% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX350 is ahead in 57 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.29 | 2.58 |
| Recency | 10 February 2020 | 22 February 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 75 Watt |
GeForce MX350 has a 182.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 275% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX350 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
