M4000M vs P3000 Mobile

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy

Combined performance score

P3000 Mobile
19.20
+19.6%

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 20% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking269307
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money9.963.35
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameN17E-Q1GM204
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date11 January 2017 (7 years old)2 October 2015 (8 years old)
Current price$537 $832
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

P3000 Mobile has 197% better value for money than M4000M.

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 cores12801,280
Core clock speed1088 MHz975 MHz
Boost clock speed1215 MHz1013 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate97.2078.00
Floating-point performance3,110 gflops2,496 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro P3000 Mobile and Quadro M4000M 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
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 amount6 GB4 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed7008 MHz5012 MHz
Memory bandwidth168 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 Port1.41.2

Technologies

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

Optimus++
3D Vision Prono data+
3D Stereo+no data
Mosaic++
nView Display Management++
Optimus++

API support

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

DirectX1212
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA6.15.2

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.

P3000 Mobile 19.20
+19.6%
M4000M 16.06

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 20% in our combined benchmark results.


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%

P3000 Mobile 12105
+18%
M4000M 10259

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 18% 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%

P3000 Mobile 9256
+19.8%
M4000M 7723

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 20% 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%

P3000 Mobile 63332
+28.7%
M4000M 49204

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 29% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

P3000 Mobile 68
+21.3%
M4000M 56

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 21% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

P3000 Mobile 107
+21.1%
M4000M 89

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 21% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

P3000 Mobile 73
M4000M 110
+49.9%

M4000M outperforms P3000 Mobile by 50% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

P3000 Mobile 97
+21.2%
M4000M 80

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 21% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

P3000 Mobile 87
+27.2%
M4000M 68

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 27% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

P3000 Mobile 30
+9.6%
M4000M 27

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 10% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

P3000 Mobile 55
+23.1%
M4000M 45

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 23% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

P3000 Mobile 8
+18.5%
M4000M 7

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 18% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

Benchmark coverage: 2%

P3000 Mobile 55
+23.1%
M4000M 45

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 23% 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%

P3000 Mobile 68
+21.3%
M4000M 56

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 21% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Benchmark coverage: 2%

P3000 Mobile 97
+21.4%
M4000M 80

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 21% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Benchmark coverage: 2%

P3000 Mobile 107
+21.1%
M4000M 89

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 21% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Benchmark coverage: 2%

P3000 Mobile 73
M4000M 110
+49.9%

M4000M outperforms P3000 Mobile by 50% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

Benchmark coverage: 2%

P3000 Mobile 87
+27.4%
M4000M 68

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 27% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

Benchmark coverage: 2%

P3000 Mobile 30
+9.6%
M4000M 27

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 10% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

Benchmark coverage: 2%

P3000 Mobile 7.7
+18.5%
M4000M 6.5

P3000 Mobile outperforms M4000M by 18% 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 HD64
+1.6%
63
−1.6%
4K28
+40%
20
−40%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+20%
24−27
−20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+18.2%
30−35
−18.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+22.2%
27−30
−22.2%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+18.2%
55−60
−18.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+22%
40−45
−22%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+20%
24−27
−20%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+19%
40−45
−19%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+18.2%
40−45
−18.2%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+17.9%
55−60
−17.9%
Hitman 3 55−60
+22.2%
45−50
−22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+20.6%
30−35
−20.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+20.6%
30−35
−20.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+19.4%
30−35
−19.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+18.2%
30−35
−18.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+22.2%
27−30
−22.2%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+18.2%
55−60
−18.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+22%
40−45
−22%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+20%
24−27
−20%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+19%
40−45
−19%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+18.2%
40−45
−18.2%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+17.9%
55−60
−17.9%
Hitman 3 55−60
+22.2%
45−50
−22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+20.6%
30−35
−20.6%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+24%
24−27
−24%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+20.6%
30−35
−20.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 63
+85.3%
30−35
−85.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+19.4%
30−35
−19.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+18.2%
30−35
−18.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+22.2%
27−30
−22.2%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+18.2%
55−60
−18.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+20%
24−27
−20%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+19%
40−45
−19%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+18.2%
40−45
−18.2%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+17.9%
55−60
−17.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
−3%
30−35
+3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+19.4%
30−35
−19.4%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+20.8%
24−27
−20.8%
Hitman 3 30−35
+24%
24−27
−24%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+18.2%
21−24
−18.2%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+20%
14−16
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+25%
20−22
−25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+17.6%
16−18
−17.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Battlefield 5 40−45
+23.5%
30−35
−23.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+23.1%
24−27
−23.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+21.9%
30−35
−21.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+23.5%
16−18
−23.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Hitman 3 18−20
+20%
14−16
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+46.7%
14−16
−46.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+29.4%
16−18
−29.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+15.4%
12−14
−15.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+22.7%
21−24
−22.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

This is how P3000 Mobile and M4000M compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • P3000 Mobile is 1.6% faster than M4000M

4K resolution:

  • P3000 Mobile is 40% 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 High Preset, the P3000 Mobile is 85.3% faster than the M4000M.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M4000M is 3% faster than the P3000 Mobile.

All in all, in popular games:

  • P3000 Mobile is ahead in 67 tests (99%)
  • M4000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 19.20 16.06
Recency 11 January 2017 2 October 2015
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 100 Watt

The Quadro P3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M4000M in performance tests.


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

User ratings

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


NVIDIA Quadro P3000 Mobile
Quadro P3000 Mobile
NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
Quadro M4000M

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.


4 123 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro P3000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 116 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro M4000M 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.