GRID M3-3020 vs Quadro P3000 Mobile

Place in the ranking	318	519
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	15.67	no data
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	GP104	GM107
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (7 years ago)	18 May 2016 (8 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 cores	1280	640
Core clock speed	1088 MHz	1033 MHz
Boost clock speed	1215 MHz	1306 MHz
Number of transistors	7,200 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	97.20	52.24
Floating-point processing power	3.11 TFLOPS	1.672 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	16
TMUs	80	40

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 size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 8-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 type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1753 MHz	1300 MHz
Memory bandwidth	168 GB/s	83.2 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 Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
Display Port	1.4	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	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.

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.1.126
CUDA	6.1	5.0

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	64 +137%	27−30 −137%
4K	31 +121%	14−16 −121%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

30−35
+121%

14−16

−121%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +139%	18−20 −139%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Battlefield 5	60−65 +133%	27−30 −133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +144%	16−18 −144%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +121%	14−16 −121%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55 +148%	21−24 −148%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 +140%	50−55 −140%
Hitman 3	35−40 +138%	16−18 −138%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +135%	40−45 −135%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +123%	30−33 −123%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +148%	21−24 −148%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +137%	27−30 −137%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 +125%	40−45 −125%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +139%	18−20 −139%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Battlefield 5	60−65 +133%	27−30 −133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +144%	16−18 −144%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +121%	14−16 −121%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	50−55 +148%	21−24 −148%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 +140%	50−55 −140%
Hitman 3	35−40 +138%	16−18 −138%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +135%	40−45 −135%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +123%	30−33 −123%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 +148%	21−24 −148%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +137%	27−30 −137%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	81 +131%	35−40 −131%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 +125%	40−45 −125%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	40−45 +139%	18−20 −139%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +129%	14−16 −129%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +144%	16−18 −144%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +121%	14−16 −121%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +150%	18−20 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	120−130 +140%	50−55 −140%
Hitman 3	35−40 +138%	16−18 −138%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +135%	40−45 −135%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60−65 +137%	27−30 −137%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	33 +136%	14−16 −136%
Watch Dogs: Legion	90−95 +125%	40−45 −125%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55
+148%

21−24

−148%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +131%	16−18 −131%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +142%	12−14 −142%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +122%	9−10 −122%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +144%	9−10 −144%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +138%	45−50 −138%
Hitman 3	21−24 +130%	10−11 −130%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +144%	16−18 −144%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +125%	16−18 −125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +144%	16−18 −144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +144%	9−10 −144%
Watch Dogs: Legion	110−120 +130%	50−55 −130%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35
+129%

14−16

−129%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +138%	8−9 −138%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +150%	6−7 −150%
Hitman 3	14−16 +150%	6−7 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100−105 +122%	45−50 −122%
Metro Exodus	20−22 +122%	9−10 −122%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 +144%	9−10 −144%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +175%	4−5 −175%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +160%	10−11 −160%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+143%

7−8
−143%

This is how P3000 Mobile and GRID M3-3020 compete in popular games:

P3000 Mobile is 137% faster in 1080p
P3000 Mobile is 121% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	16.90	7.66
Recency	11 January 2017	18 May 2016
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm

P3000 Mobile has a 120.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID M3-3020 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while GRID M3-3020 is a workstation one.

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