GeForce GTX 460M SLI vs Quadro M3000M

Place in performance ranking	339	596
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	2.27	2.31
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2018)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GM204	N11E-GS
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	2 October 2015 (8 years ago)	3 September 2010 (13 years ago)
Current price	$981	$149

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 460M SLI has 2% better value for money than M3000M.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1,024	384
Core clock speed	1050 MHz	675 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	67.20	no data
Floating-point performance	2,150 gflops	no data

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro M3000M and GeForce GTX 460M SLI compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	large	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

Memory

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	4 GB	2x1536 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	5000 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	-	-

Video outputs and ports

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 data
Display Port	1.2	no data

Technologies

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

Optimus	+	no data
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API support

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

DirectX	12	11
Shader Model	5.0	no data
OpenGL	4.5	no data
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	+	no data
CUDA	5.2	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

M3000M 14.27
+189%

GTX 460M SLI 4.93

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 460M SLI by 189% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

M3000M 27405
+92.5%

GTX 460M SLI 14236

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 460M SLI by 93% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

M3000M 8289
+150%

GTX 460M SLI 3313

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 460M SLI by 150% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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:

900p	150−160 +188%	52 −188%
Full HD	60 −11.7%	67 +11.7%
4K	25 +213%	8−9 −213%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

21−24
+175%

8−9

−175%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +227%	14−16 −227%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +131%	16−18 −131%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +270%	10−11 −270%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +255%	10−12 −255%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +213%	16−18 −213%
Hitman 3	35−40 +255%	10−12 −255%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +167%	9−10 −167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +350%	6−7 −350%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +227%	14−16 −227%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +131%	16−18 −131%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +270%	10−11 −270%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +255%	10−12 −255%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +213%	16−18 −213%
Hitman 3	35−40 +255%	10−12 −255%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +214%	7−8 −214%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +167%	9−10 −167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +150%	12−14 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 +320%	10−11 −320%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +350%	6−7 −350%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 +233%	9−10 −233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +227%	14−16 −227%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +270%	10−11 −270%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +255%	10−12 −255%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +213%	16−18 −213%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 +120%	10−11 −120%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +350%	6−7 −350%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Hitman 3	21−24 +175%	8−9 −175%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +81.8%	10−12 −81.8%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Battlefield 5	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +188%	8−9 −188%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +550%	4−5 −550%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +367%	6−7 −367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +180%	5−6 −180%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10	0−1

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Hitman 3	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +25%	8−9 −25%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Battlefield 5	14−16 +200%	5−6 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +100%	7−8 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +567%	3−4 −567%
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6	0−1