FirePro M4000 vs Quadro 3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 3000M and FirePro M4000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M4000 outperforms 3000M by an impressive 61% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 830 | 696 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.36 | 8.64 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | Chelsea |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 27 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $398.96 | no data |
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 | 240 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 675 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.00 | 21.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | n/a |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Form factor | no data | MXM-A |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 72 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 |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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 | 51
+88.9%
| 27
−88.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.82 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−83.3%
|
21−24
+83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−23.3%
|
50−55
+23.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−48.9%
|
70−75
+48.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−83.3%
|
21−24
+83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−23.3%
|
50−55
+23.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−23.3%
|
50−55
+23.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−83.3%
|
21−24
+83.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−70.6%
|
27−30
+70.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−55.6%
|
27−30
+55.6%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−95.2%
|
40−45
+95.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−66.7%
|
20−22
+66.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how Quadro 3000M and FirePro M4000 compete in popular games:
- Quadro 3000M is 89% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FirePro M4000 is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro M4000 is ahead in 58 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.57 | 4.13 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 27 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 33 Watt |
Quadro 3000M has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
FirePro M4000, on the other hand, has a 60.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 127.3% lower power consumption.
The FirePro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
