Quadro 3000M vs UHD Graphics 630

Place in the ranking	758	817
Place by popularity	40	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.20
Power efficiency	14.36	2.40
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Comet Lake GT2	GF104
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 October 2017 (7 years ago)	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$398.96

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	184	240
Core clock speed	350 MHz	450 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+++	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	26.45	18.00
Floating-point processing power	0.4232 TFLOPS	0.432 TFLOPS
ROPs	3	32
TMUs	23	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	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x1	MXM-B (3.0)
Width	IGP	no 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 type	System Shared	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	2 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	625 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.103	N/A
CUDA	-	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. 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.

UHD Graphics 630 3.09
+19.8%

Quadro 3000M 2.58

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.

UHD Graphics 630 1192
+19.8%

Quadro 3000M 995

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.

UHD Graphics 630 1790
+16.3%

Quadro 3000M 1539

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.

UHD Graphics 630 7704

Quadro 3000M 7941
+3.1%

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	16 −219%	51 +219%
1440p	10 +25%	8−9 −25%
4K	7 +40%	5−6 −40%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	7.82
1440p	no data	49.87
4K	no data	79.79

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

5−6

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	10 +233%	3−4 −233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Far Cry 5	7 +40%	5−6 −40%
Far Cry New Dawn	9 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +131%	12−14 −131%
Hitman 3	6 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +15%	20−22 −15%
Metro Exodus	13 +550%	2−3 −550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9 +50%	6−7 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +45.5%	10−12 −45.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30 −26.7%	35−40 +26.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Forza Horizon 4	27 +108%	12−14 −108%
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +15%	20−22 −15%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +15.4%	12−14 −15.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	28 −35.7%	35−40 +35.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +30.8%	12−14 −30.8%
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +15%	20−22 −15%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 +0%	10−12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +7.7%	12−14 −7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +2.6%	35−40 −2.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+33.3%

6−7

−33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +26.7%	14−16 −26.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

This is how UHD Graphics 630 and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:

Quadro 3000M is 219% faster in 1080p
UHD Graphics 630 is 25% faster in 1440p
UHD Graphics 630 is 40% faster in 4K

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

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics 630 is 550% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro 3000M is 36% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

UHD Graphics 630 is ahead in 40 tests (70%)
Quadro 3000M is ahead in 4 tests (7%)
there's a draw in 13 tests (23%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.09	2.58
Recency	1 October 2017	22 February 2011
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	75 Watt

UHD Graphics 630 has a 19.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics 630 is a desktop 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.