Quadro 3000M vs Iris Graphics 540

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Graphics 540 with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.

Iris Graphics 540
2015
15 Watt
3.26
+26.4%

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms 3000M by a significant 26% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking744819
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.20
Power efficiency15.152.40
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameSkylake GT3eGF104
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$398.96

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores384240
Core clock speed300 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate48.0018.00
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPS0.432 TFLOPS
ROPs632
TMUs4840

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 datalarge
InterfaceRing BusMXM-B (3.0)

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared625 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data80 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan1.3N/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.

Iris Graphics 540 3.26
+26.4%
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.

Iris Graphics 540 1259
+26.5%
Quadro 3000M 995

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.

Iris Graphics 540 2212
+43.7%
Quadro 3000M 1539

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.

Iris Graphics 540 8828
+11.2%
Quadro 3000M 7941

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 HD22
−132%
51
+132%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data7.82

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+15%
20−22
−15%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+2.6%
35−40
−2.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+15%
20−22
−15%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+30.8%
12−14
−30.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+2.6%
35−40
−2.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Hitman 3 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+15%
20−22
−15%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+2.6%
35−40
−2.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+20%
14−16
−20%

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 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

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%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how Iris Graphics 540 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 Iris Graphics 540 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Graphics 540 is ahead in 46 tests (81%)
  • there's a draw in 11 tests (19%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.26 2.58
Recency 1 September 2015 22 February 2011
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 75 Watt

Iris Graphics 540 has a 26.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Iris Graphics 540 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Graphics 540 is a notebook graphics 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.

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.


Intel Iris Graphics 540
Iris Graphics 540
NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
Quadro 3000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 92 votes

Rate Iris Graphics 540 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 49 votes

Rate Quadro 3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.