GeForce GTX 965M vs Quadro M3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.30
+46.1%

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by a considerable 46% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking342423
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.340.96
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameGM204N16E-GS, N16E-GR
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date2 October 2015 (8 years ago)5 January 2015 (9 years ago)
Current price$981 $1546

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M3000M has 144% better value for money than GTX 965M.

Detailed specifications

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 cores1,0241024
CUDA coresno data1024
Core clock speed1050 MHz944 MHz
Boost clock speedno data950 / 1151 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate67.2073.60
Floating-point performance2,150 gflops2,355 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro M3000M and GeForce GTX 965M 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 sizelargelarge
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
SLI optionsno data+

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s80 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
VGA аnalog display supportno data+
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno data+
HDMIno data+
Display Port1.2no data
G-SYNC supportno data+

Supported technologies

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

GameStreamno data+
GeForce ShadowPlayno data+
GPU Boostno data2.0
GameWorksno data+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoderno data+
Optimus++
BatteryBoostno data+
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data
Anselno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.06.4
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+1.1
CUDA5.2+

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 14.30
+46.1%
GTX 965M 9.79

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 46% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

M3000M 5526
+46%
GTX 965M 3785

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 46% in Passmark.

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
+13.2%
GTX 965M 7322

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 13% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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
+16.3%
GTX 965M 23562

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 16% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

M3000M 6537
+18.1%
GTX 965M 5536

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 18% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

M3000M 44603
+28.4%
GTX 965M 34748

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 28% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

M3000M 16099
+10.7%
GTX 965M 14537

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 11% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

M3000M 16677
+1.2%
GTX 965M 16483

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 1% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

M3000M 15678
+13.1%
GTX 965M 13861

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 13% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

M3000M 80
+20.6%
GTX 965M 66

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 21% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

M3000M 45
+12.5%
GTX 965M 40

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 13% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 50
+25.7%
GTX 965M 40

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 26% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 85
+181%
GTX 965M 30

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 181% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 52
+1429%
GTX 965M 3

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 1429% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 77
+218%
GTX 965M 24

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 218% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 65
+232%
GTX 965M 20

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 232% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 22
+41.9%
GTX 965M 16

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 42% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 40
+52.5%
GTX 965M 26

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 52% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M3000M 5
+586%
GTX 965M 1

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 586% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M3000M 40
+52.5%
GTX 965M 26

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 52% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M3000M 50
+25.7%
GTX 965M 40

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 26% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M3000M 77
+218%
GTX 965M 24

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 218% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M3000M 85
+181%
GTX 965M 30

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 181% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M3000M 52
+1429%
GTX 965M 3

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 1429% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M3000M 65
+232%
GTX 965M 20

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 232% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M3000M 22
+41.9%
GTX 965M 16

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 42% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M3000M 4.8
+586%
GTX 965M 0.7

Quadro M3000M outperforms GeForce GTX 965M by 586% in SPECviewperf 12 - Energy.

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 HD58
+26.1%
46
−26.1%
1440p35−40
+45.8%
24
−45.8%
4K23
+9.5%
21
−9.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+46.7%
14−16
−46.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
−3.3%
31
+3.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Battlefield 5 45−50
−6.5%
49
+6.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+46.7%
14−16
−46.7%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+34.5%
27−30
−34.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+0%
40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+2.1%
47
−2.1%
Hitman 3 30−35
+50%
21−24
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+0%
46
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+53.6%
27−30
−53.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
−12.5%
45
+12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+42.9%
27−30
−42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+52.9%
16−18
−52.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
+25%
24
−25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+24.3%
37
−24.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+46.7%
14−16
−46.7%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+34.5%
27−30
−34.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+25%
32
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+17.1%
41
−17.1%
Hitman 3 30−35
+50%
21−24
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+35.3%
34
−35.3%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+22.9%
35
−22.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+11.1%
36
−11.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+42.9%
27−30
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+35.5%
31
−35.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+52.9%
16−18
−52.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
+131%
13
−131%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+46.7%
14−16
−46.7%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+34.5%
27−30
−34.5%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+71.4%
28
−71.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+100%
23
−100%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+34.4%
32
−34.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+22.2%
18
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+52.9%
16−18
−52.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+25%
32
−25%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+47.4%
18−20
−47.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Hitman 3 20−22
+53.8%
12−14
−53.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+50%
10
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+4.5%
22
−4.5%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+50%
18−20
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+61.1%
18
−61.1%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+78.6%
14−16
−78.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5 30−35
+34.8%
21−24
−34.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Hitman 3 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+7.7%
13
−7.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+167%
3
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+35.7%
14
−35.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+66.7%
9
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 14−16
−121%
31
+121%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+30%
10
−30%

This is how M3000M and GTX 965M compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 26% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 46% faster in 1440p
  • M3000M is 10% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M3000M is 167% faster.
  • in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 965M is 121% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M3000M is ahead in 66 tests (92%)
  • GTX 965M is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.30 9.79
Recency 2 October 2015 5 January 2015

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 965M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 965M 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.


NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
Quadro M3000M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M
GeForce GTX 965M

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.


3.8 313 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 106 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 965M 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.