M3000M vs M4000M

#ad
Buy
VS

General info

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

Place in performance ranking306332
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money3.372.24
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameGM204GM204
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date2 October 2015 (8 years old)2 October 2015 (8 years old)
Current price$832 $981
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M4000M has 50% better value for money than M3000M.

Technical specs

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 cores1,2801,024
Core clock speed975 MHz1050 MHz
Boost clock speed1013 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,200 million5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate78.0067.20
Floating-point performance2,496 gflops2,150 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro M4000M and Quadro M3000M 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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

Memory

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 speed5012 MHz5000 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s160 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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 Port1.21.2

Technologies

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

Optimus++
3D Vision Pro++
Mosaic++
nView Display Management++
Optimus++

API support

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

DirectX1212
Shader Model5.05.0
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
CUDA5.25.2

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.

M4000M
16.13
+12.6%

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 13% in our combined 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%

M4000M 6252
+12.6%
M3000M 5550

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 13% 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%

M4000M 10259
+23.8%
M3000M 8289

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 24% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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%

M4000M 7723
+18.2%
M3000M 6537

M4000M outperforms M3000M 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%

M4000M 49204
+10.3%
M3000M 44603

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 10% 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%

M4000M 18998
+18.5%
M3000M 16037

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 18% 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%

M4000M 21133
+26.7%
M3000M 16677

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 27% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

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%

M4000M 53
+17.8%
M3000M 45

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 18% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M4000M 56
+10.7%
M3000M 50

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 11% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M4000M 89
+4.5%
M3000M 85

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 4% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M4000M 110
+111%
M3000M 52

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 111% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M4000M 80
+3.4%
M3000M 77

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 3% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M4000M 68
+5.6%
M3000M 65

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 6% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M4000M 27
+23.6%
M3000M 22

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 24% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M4000M 45
+11.8%
M3000M 40

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 12% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M4000M 7
+35.4%
M3000M 5

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 35% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M4000M 45
+11.8%
M3000M 40

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 12% 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%

M4000M 56
+10.7%
M3000M 50

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 11% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M4000M 80
+3.2%
M3000M 77

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 3% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M4000M 89
+4.5%
M3000M 85

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 4% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M4000M 110
+111%
M3000M 52

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 111% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M4000M 68
+5.4%
M3000M 65

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 5% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M4000M 27
+23.6%
M3000M 22

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 24% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M4000M 6.5
+35.4%
M3000M 4.8

M4000M outperforms M3000M by 35% 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 HD63
+5%
60
−5%
4K20
−25%
25
+25%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+13.6%
21−24
−13.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+16.7%
24−27
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+12.2%
45−50
−12.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+13.5%
35−40
−13.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+13.6%
21−24
−13.6%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+13.5%
35−40
−13.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+12.8%
35−40
−12.8%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+12.2%
45−50
−12.2%
Hitman 3 45−50
+15.4%
35−40
−15.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+16.7%
24−27
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+12.2%
45−50
−12.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+13.5%
35−40
−13.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+13.6%
21−24
−13.6%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+13.5%
35−40
−13.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+12.8%
35−40
−12.8%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+12.2%
45−50
−12.2%
Hitman 3 45−50
+15.4%
35−40
−15.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+13.6%
21−24
−13.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
−23.5%
42
+23.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+16.7%
24−27
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+12.2%
45−50
−12.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+13.6%
21−24
−13.6%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+13.5%
35−40
−13.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+12.8%
35−40
−12.8%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+12.2%
45−50
−12.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+54.5%
22
−54.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Hitman 3 24−27
+13.6%
21−24
−13.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+10%
20−22
−10%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+15.4%
12−14
−15.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+17.4%
21−24
−17.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−33
+15.4%
24−27
−15.4%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+11.8%
16−18
−11.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Hitman 3 14−16
+15.4%
12−14
−15.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+14.3%
14
−14.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

This is how M4000M and M3000M compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • M4000M is 5% faster than M3000M

4K resolution:

  • M3000M is 25% faster than M4000M

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M4000M is 54.5% faster than the M3000M.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the M3000M is 23.5% faster than the M4000M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M4000M is ahead in 67 tests (99%)
  • M3000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 16.13 14.32
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 75 Watt

The Quadro M4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M3000M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Cast your own vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
Quadro M4000M
NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
Quadro M3000M

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 116 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro M4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 279 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.