Quadro M3000M vs M4000
Aggregate performance score
M4000 outperforms M3000M by a significant 21% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 296 | 343 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.71 | 2.32 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (8 years ago) | 2 October 2015 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $791 | no data |
| Current price | $314 (0.4x MSRP) | $981 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro M4000 has 362% better value for money than M3000M.
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 cores | 1664 | 1,024 |
| Core clock speed | 773 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.39 | 67.20 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,573 gflops | 2,150 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro M4000 and Quadro M3000M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 192 GB/s | 160 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 Connectors | DP DP DP DP 3-pin Stereo | No outputs |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | + |
| Mosaic | + | + |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 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.
M4000 outperforms M3000M by 21% based on our aggregated 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%
M4000 outperforms M3000M by 21% in Passmark.
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%
M4000 outperforms M3000M by 12% 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%
M4000 outperforms M3000M by 19% 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%
M4000 outperforms M3000M by 6% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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%
M4000 outperforms M3000M by 22% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
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 HD | 70−75
+20.7%
| 58
−20.7%
|
| 4K | 27−30
+17.4%
| 23
−17.4%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.30 | 14.29 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 2 October 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
The Quadro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M4000 is a workstation card while Quadro M3000M 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
