Quadro FX 3800M vs Quadro M3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M3000M and Quadro FX 3800M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.67
+885%

M3000M outperforms FX 3800M by a whopping 885% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking358983
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.461.03
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGM204G92
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)14 August 2008 (16 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 cores1,024128
Core clock speed1050 MHz675 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million754 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate67.2043.20
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPS0.4224 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6464

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 sizelargelarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
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 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s64 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 compatibility

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

DirectX1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA5.2+

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. 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 14.67
+885%
FX 3800M 1.49

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 5638
+882%
FX 3800M 574

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
+304%
FX 3800M 6779

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
+76.5%
34
−76.5%
4K32
+967%
3−4
−967%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Elden Ring 45−50
+4400%
1−2
−4400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+2300%
2−3
−2300%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+556%
9−10
−556%
Metro Exodus 40−45 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+414%
7−8
−414%
Valorant 55−60
+1060%
5−6
−1060%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+2300%
2−3
−2300%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Dota 2 33
+1550%
2−3
−1550%
Elden Ring 45−50
+4400%
1−2
−4400%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+391%
10−12
−391%
Fortnite 80−85
+1071%
7−8
−1071%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+556%
9−10
−556%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+2350%
2−3
−2350%
Metro Exodus 40−45 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+563%
16−18
−563%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+414%
7−8
−414%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+543%
7−8
−543%
Valorant 55−60
+1060%
5−6
−1060%
World of Tanks 190−200
+516%
30−35
−516%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+2300%
2−3
−2300%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+625%
4−5
−625%
Dota 2 50−55
+2550%
2−3
−2550%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+391%
10−12
−391%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+556%
9−10
−556%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+563%
16−18
−563%
Valorant 55−60
+1060%
5−6
−1060%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Elden Ring 21−24 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+1322%
9−10
−1322%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1
World of Tanks 100−110
+1044%
9−10
−1044%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+600%
5−6
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+967%
3−4
−967%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Valorant 35−40
+429%
7−8
−429%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Dota 2 35
+119%
16−18
−119%
Elden Ring 10−11 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+133%
14−16
−133%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+975%
4−5
−975%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+133%
14−16
−133%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Dota 2 24−27
+62.5%
16−18
−62.5%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Fortnite 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Valorant 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%

This is how M3000M and FX 3800M compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 76% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 967% faster in 4K

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

  • in Elden Ring, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the M3000M is 4400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, M3000M surpassed FX 3800M in all 44 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.67 1.49
Recency 18 August 2015 14 August 2008
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 100 Watt

M3000M has a 884.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3800M in performance tests.


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 Quadro FX 3800M
Quadro FX 3800M

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.


3.8 358 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 6 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3800M 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.