Radeon R7 265 vs Quadro M3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M3000M with Radeon R7 265, including specs and performance data.

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
13.81
+38.2%

M3000M outperforms R7 265 by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking397474
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data4.77
Power efficiency13.304.81
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameGM204Pitcairn
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)13 February 2014 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores1,0241024
Core clock speed1050 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data925 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate67.2059.20
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPS1.894 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data210 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1 x 6-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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1400 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s179.2 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 outputs2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire-+
FreeSync-+
DDMA audiono data+
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.

DirectX12DirectX® 12
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+-
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.

M3000M 13.81
+38.2%
R7 265 9.99

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.

M3000M 6537
+25.2%
R7 265 5220

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
+50%
40−45
−50%
4K25
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.73
4Kno data8.28

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+52%
50−55
−52%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
Dead Island 2 50−55
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+47.5%
40−45
−47.5%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+52%
50−55
−52%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
Dead Island 2 50−55
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+50%
30−33
−50%
Fortnite 75−80
+41.8%
55−60
−41.8%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+40%
30−33
−40%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+40%
35−40
−40%
Valorant 110−120
+43.8%
80−85
−43.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+47.5%
40−45
−47.5%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+52%
50−55
−52%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+43.8%
130−140
−43.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
Dead Island 2 50−55
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%
Dota 2 85−90
+46.7%
60−65
−46.7%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+50%
30−33
−50%
Fortnite 75−80
+41.8%
55−60
−41.8%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+40%
30−33
−40%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+40%
35−40
−40%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+40%
35−40
−40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+40%
30−33
−40%
Valorant 110−120
+43.8%
80−85
−43.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+47.5%
40−45
−47.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
Dead Island 2 50−55
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%
Dota 2 85−90
+46.7%
60−65
−46.7%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+50%
30−33
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+40%
35−40
−40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%
Valorant 110−120
+43.8%
80−85
−43.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+41.8%
55−60
−41.8%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+45.7%
70−75
−45.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+50%
14−16
−50%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+60%
10−11
−60%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+45.6%
90−95
−45.6%
Valorant 140−150
+43%
100−105
−43%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+40.7%
27−30
−40.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Dead Island 2 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−33
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Dead Island 2 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+45.8%
24−27
−45.8%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+40%
10−11
−40%
Valorant 70−75
+48%
50−55
−48%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Dead Island 2 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Dota 2 45−50
+40%
35−40
−40%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+50%
16−18
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%

This is how M3000M and R7 265 compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 50% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 39% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.81 9.99
Recency 18 August 2015 13 February 2014
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 150 Watt

M3000M has a 38.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 100% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 265 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 265 is a desktop one.

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
AMD Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 265

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.


3.8 368 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 376 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M3000M or Radeon R7 265, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.