Quadro 3000M vs Quadro P4000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P4000 with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P4000
2017
8 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
30.21
+1066%

P4000 outperforms 3000M by a whopping 1066% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking189823
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.450.25
Power efficiency19.812.38
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGP104GF104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$815 $398.96

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P4000 has 6880% 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 cores1792240
Core clock speed1202 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate165.818.00
Floating-point processing power5.304 TFLOPS0.432 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs11240

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1901 MHz625 MHz
Memory bandwidth192 GB/s80 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs
Display Port1.4no 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.

DirectX1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA6.12.1

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. 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.

Quadro P4000 30.21
+1066%
Quadro 3000M 2.59

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

Quadro P4000 11615
+1067%
Quadro 3000M 995

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.

Quadro P4000 41376
+1003%
Quadro 3000M 3750

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.

Quadro P4000 102
+685%
Quadro 3000M 13

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 HD69
+35.3%
51
−35.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p11.81
−51%
7.82
+51%
  • Quadro 3000M has 51% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+490%
10−11
−490%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+950%
6−7
−950%
Elden Ring 100−110
+1940%
5−6
−1940%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+1367%
6−7
−1367%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+490%
10−11
−490%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+950%
6−7
−950%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+962%
12−14
−962%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+1825%
4−5
−1825%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+530%
10−11
−530%
Valorant 120−130
+1110%
10−11
−1110%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+1367%
6−7
−1367%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+490%
10−11
−490%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+950%
6−7
−950%
Dota 2 100−110
+1583%
6−7
−1583%
Elden Ring 100−110
+1940%
5−6
−1940%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+467%
14−16
−467%
Fortnite 140−150
+921%
14−16
−921%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+962%
12−14
−962%
Grand Theft Auto V 100−105
+1567%
6−7
−1567%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+1825%
4−5
−1825%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+633%
24−27
−633%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+530%
10−11
−530%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+910%
10−11
−910%
Valorant 120−130
+1110%
10−11
−1110%
World of Tanks 270−280
+483%
45−50
−483%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+1367%
6−7
−1367%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60
+490%
10−11
−490%
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65
+950%
6−7
−950%
Dota 2 100−110
+1583%
6−7
−1583%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+467%
14−16
−467%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+962%
12−14
−962%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+633%
24−27
−633%
Valorant 120−130
+1110%
10−11
−1110%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 50−55
+1225%
4−5
−1225%
Elden Ring 55−60
+2700%
2−3
−2700%
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+872%
18−20
−872%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
World of Tanks 190−200
+1053%
16−18
−1053%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+2850%
2−3
−2850%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+200%
9−10
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+1229%
7−8
−1229%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+1086%
7−8
−1086%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+1260%
5−6
−1260%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+1075%
4−5
−1075%
Valorant 85−90
+856%
9−10
−856%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Dota 2 55−60
+244%
16−18
−244%
Elden Ring 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+267%
14−16
−267%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+1243%
7−8
−1243%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+267%
14−16
−267%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+1550%
2−3
−1550%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Dota 2 55−60
+244%
16−18
−244%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+1950%
2−3
−1950%
Fortnite 35−40
+3800%
1−2
−3800%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Valorant 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%

This is how Quadro P4000 and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P4000 is 35% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Fortnite, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 3800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Quadro P4000 surpassed Quadro 3000M in all 52 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 30.21 2.59
Recency 6 February 2017 22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro P4000 has a 1066.4% 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 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation card while Quadro 3000M 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.

Vote for your favorite

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


NVIDIA Quadro P4000
Quadro P4000
NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
Quadro 3000M

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


4 309 votes

Rate Quadro P4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 49 votes

Rate Quadro 3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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