Radeon 660M vs Quadro 3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 3000M with Radeon 660M, including specs and performance data.
660M outperforms 3000M by a whopping 229% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 873 | 548 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.10 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.42 | 14.91 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | Rembrandt+ |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (2 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.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 13,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.00 | 45.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | 1.459 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 24 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 6 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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.
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
+104%
| 25
−104%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.82 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−380%
|
24
+380%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−214%
|
22
+214%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−300%
|
20
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−400%
|
30
+400%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−300%
|
45−50
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−680%
|
39
+680%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−157%
|
18
+157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−142%
|
27−30
+142%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−92.9%
|
80−85
+92.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−166%
|
120−130
+166%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−180%
|
14
+180%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−124%
|
56
+124%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−333%
|
26
+333%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−300%
|
45−50
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−540%
|
32
+540%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−85.7%
|
13
+85.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−300%
|
24
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−275%
|
15
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−142%
|
27−30
+142%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−178%
|
25
+178%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−92.9%
|
80−85
+92.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−92%
|
48
+92%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−317%
|
25
+317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| God of War | 7−8
−57.1%
|
11
+57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−142%
|
27−30
+142%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−66.7%
|
15
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−92.9%
|
80−85
+92.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−300%
|
45−50
+300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−200%
|
14−16
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−259%
|
60−65
+259%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−87%
|
40−45
+87%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−324%
|
85−90
+324%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
| God of War | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−242%
|
40−45
+242%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−383%
|
27−30
+383%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| God of War | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 3000M and Radeon 660M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 3000M is 104% 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 Radeon 660M is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 660M performs better in 57 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.38 | 7.83 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 40 Watt |
Radeon 660M has a 229% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 566.7% more advanced lithography process, and 87.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 660M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon 660M 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.
