NVIDIA Quadro 3000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 month(s) later
• Around 67% higher texture fill rate: 18 GTexel / s vs 10.8 billion / sec
• 2.5x more pipelines: 240 vs 96
• Around 67% better floating-point performance: 432.0 gflops vs 258.05 gflops
• 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
• 2.8x more memory clock speed: 2500 MHz vs 900 MHz
• 2.1x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 994 vs 478
• 3.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 312 vs 90
• Around 76% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 3783 vs 2154
• 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 10.95 vs 4.85
• Around 66% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 325.007 vs 195.796
• Around 54% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.865 vs 0.561
• Around 51% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 13.794 vs 9.109
• Around 67% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 27.961 vs 16.727

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M

• Around 49% higher core clock speed: 672 MHz vs 450 MHz
• 2.1x lower typical power consumption: 35 Watt vs 75 Watt
• 4.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 960 vs 218
• 5.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2210 vs 374
• 5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2701 vs 543
• 4.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 960 vs 218
• 5.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2210 vs 374
• 5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2701 vs 543

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	994 478
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	312 90
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	3783 2154
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10.95 4.85
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	325.007 195.796
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	0.865 0.561
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	13.794 9.109
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	27.961 16.727
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	218 960
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	374 2210
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	543 2701
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	218 960
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	374 2210
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	543 2701

Compare specifications (specs)