Radeon RX 5700 XT vs Quadro 3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 3000M with Radeon RX 5700 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 5700 XT outperforms 3000M by a whopping 1555% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 825 | 91 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 54 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | 46.33 |
| Power efficiency | 2.38 | 13.12 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $398.96 | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 5700 XT has 17719% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.
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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1605 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1905 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.00 | 304.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | 9.754 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 40 | 160 |
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 x16 |
| Length | no data | 272 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 448.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
| Multi Monitor | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/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.
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
−149%
| 127
+149%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−1825%
| 77
+1825%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−2300%
| 48
+2300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.82
−149%
| 3.14
+149%
|
| 1440p | 99.74
−1825%
| 5.18
+1825%
|
| 4K | 199.48
−2300%
| 8.31
+2300%
|
- RX 5700 XT has 149% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5700 XT has 1825% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5700 XT has 2300% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−745%
|
93
+745%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1200%
|
78
+1200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1450%
|
93
+1450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−591%
|
76
+591%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1267%
|
82
+1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1700%
|
234
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−6400%
|
130
+6400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−3800%
|
156
+3800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−1050%
|
115
+1050%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−9400%
|
190
+9400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−3133%
|
194
+3133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−482%
|
64
+482%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1100%
|
72
+1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−2017%
|
127
+2017%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−280%
|
57
+280%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−1200%
|
180−190
+1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1385%
|
193
+1385%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−5400%
|
110
+5400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−1971%
|
145
+1971%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−2675%
|
111
+2675%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−925%
|
246
+925%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−560%
|
66
+560%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−1450%
|
150−160
+1450%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−5500%
|
112
+5500%
|
| World of Tanks | 45−50
−494%
|
270−280
+494%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−1250%
|
81
+1250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−418%
|
57
+418%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−950%
|
63
+950%
|
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−1617%
|
103
+1617%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−573%
|
100−110
+573%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1215%
|
171
+1215%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−5100%
|
104
+5100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−763%
|
200−210
+763%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−7850%
|
159
+7850%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−7800%
|
79
+7800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−7800%
|
79
+7800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−872%
|
170−180
+872%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−4100%
|
42
+4100%
|
| World of Tanks | 16−18
−1494%
|
270−280
+1494%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3900%
|
80
+3900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−875%
|
39
+875%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1871%
|
130−140
+1871%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−11800%
|
119
+11800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−2300%
|
72
+2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1183%
|
75−80
+1183%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−1222%
|
119
+1222%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−178%
|
24−27
+178%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−394%
|
79
+394%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−427%
|
79
+427%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1957%
|
144
+1957%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27
+2600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−427%
|
79
+427%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2500%
|
52
+2500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−481%
|
93
+481%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3200%
|
65−70
+3200%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−6200%
|
60−65
+6200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 71 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−3600%
|
37
+3600%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−3000%
|
62
+3000%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Metro Exodus | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 3000M and RX 5700 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 5700 XT is 149% faster in 1080p
- RX 5700 XT is 1825% faster in 1440p
- RX 5700 XT is 2300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 3000M is 13% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 5700 XT is 11800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro 3000M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- RX 5700 XT is ahead in 59 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.59 | 42.87 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 7 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
Quadro 3000M has 200% lower power consumption.
RX 5700 XT, on the other hand, has a 1555.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 5700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 5700 XT is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
