NVIDIA Quadro M3000M vs NVIDIA GRID K240Q
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and NVIDIA GRID K240Q 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 41% higher core clock speed: 1050 MHz vs 745 MHz
- 3x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 225 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- 2.2x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5650 vs 2541
- Around 97% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 418 vs 212
- Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7779 vs 6935
- Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7779 vs 6935
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 18 August 2015 vs 28 June 2013 |
| Core clock speed | 1050 MHz vs 745 MHz |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 225 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 5000 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5650 vs 2541 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 418 vs 212 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7779 vs 6935 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7779 vs 6935 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GRID K240Q
- Around 42% higher texture fill rate: 95.36 GTexel / s vs 67.2 GTexel / s
- Around 50% higher pipelines: 1536 vs 1,024
- Around 6% better floating-point performance: 2,289 gflops vs 2,150 gflops
- Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3938 vs 3720
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3667 vs 3360
- Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3938 vs 3720
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3667 vs 3360
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 95.36 GTexel / s vs 67.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1536 vs 1,024 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,289 gflops vs 2,150 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3938 vs 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3667 vs 3360 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3938 vs 3720 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3667 vs 3360 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GRID K240Q
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | NVIDIA GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5650 | 2541 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 418 | 212 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 16615 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 82.563 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1266.506 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.91 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 70.779 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 252.607 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7779 | 6935 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 | 3938 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 | 3667 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7779 | 6935 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 | 3938 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 | 3667 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | NVIDIA GRID K240Q | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Code name | GM204 | GK104 |
| Launch date | 18 August 2015 | 28 June 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 494 | 495 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $469 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 1050 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 2,150 gflops | 2,289 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1,024 | 1536 |
| Texture fill rate | 67.2 GTexel / s | 95.36 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Transistor count | 5,200 million | 3,540 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | large | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB / s | 160.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro M3000M with others
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
ATIFireGL V3300
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 565v
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 7970
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
NVIDIAGRID K240Q
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
AMDRadeon R9 M295X
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
AMDRadeon Pro WX 4130 Mobile
