Quadro 3000M vs Quadro P4000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 Mobile and Quadro 3000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
P4000 Mobile outperforms 3000M by a whopping 701% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 278 | 832 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.79 | 0.27 |
| Power efficiency | 14.22 | 2.37 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GF104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $819.61 | $398.96 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
P4000 Mobile has 3156% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.
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 | 1792 | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 1227 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1228 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.4 | 18.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.398 TFLOPS | 0.432 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 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 | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 80 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 and SDK 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 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 2.1 |
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 400−450
+684%
| 51
−684%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.05
+282%
| 7.82
−282%
|
- P4000 Mobile has 282% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how P4000 Mobile and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:
- P4000 Mobile is 684% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.74 | 2.59 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 22 February 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
P4000 Mobile has a 700.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 3000M, on the other hand, has 33.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
