NVS 3100M vs Quadro M3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M3000M and NVS 3100M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
13.47
+2649%

M3000M outperforms NVS 3100M by a whopping 2649% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3751248
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.162.56
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGM204GT218
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)7 January 2010 (15 years ago)

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 cores1,02416
Core clock speed1050 MHz606 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate67.204.848
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPS0.04698 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs648

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s12.64 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
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

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

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA5.21.2

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.

M3000M 13.47
+2649%
NVS 3100M 0.49

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.

M3000M 5593
+2642%
NVS 3100M 204

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.

M3000M 27405
+2346%
NVS 3100M 1121

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 HD60
+2900%
2−3
−2900%
4K250−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+3700%
2−3
−3700%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Hogwarts Legacy 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+2850%
2−3
−2850%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+3700%
2−3
−3700%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+4400%
1−2
−4400%
Fortnite 75−80
+3800%
2−3
−3800%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+1325%
4−5
−1325%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Hogwarts Legacy 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+614%
7−8
−614%
Valorant 110−120
+326%
27−30
−326%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+2850%
2−3
−2850%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+3700%
2−3
−3700%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+1069%
16−18
−1069%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Dota 2 85−90
+700%
10−12
−700%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+4400%
1−2
−4400%
Fortnite 75−80
+3800%
2−3
−3800%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+1325%
4−5
−1325%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Hogwarts Legacy 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Metro Exodus 27−30 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+614%
7−8
−614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+740%
5−6
−740%
Valorant 110−120
+326%
27−30
−326%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+2850%
2−3
−2850%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Dota 2 85−90
+700%
10−12
−700%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+4400%
1−2
−4400%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+1325%
4−5
−1325%
Hogwarts Legacy 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+614%
7−8
−614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+340%
5−6
−340%
Valorant 110−120
+326%
27−30
−326%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+3800%
2−3
−3800%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+10000%
1−2
−10000%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 16−18 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+2380%
5−6
−2380%
Valorant 140−150
+2760%
5−6
−2760%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+3700%
1−2
−3700%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 0−1
Far Cry 5 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+3200%
1−2
−3200%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+133%
14−16
−133%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9 0−1
Metro Exodus 10−11 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14 0−1
Valorant 70−75
+2367%
3−4
−2367%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Dota 2 45−50
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%

This is how M3000M and NVS 3100M compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 2900% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the M3000M is 10000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, M3000M surpassed NVS 3100M in all 34 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.47 0.49
Recency 18 August 2015 7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 14 Watt

M3000M has a 2649% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 3100M, on the other hand, has 435.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.

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 NVS 3100M
NVS 3100M

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 360 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 138 votes

Rate NVS 3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M3000M or NVS 3100M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.