NVIDIA Quadro M3000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 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 M3000M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 month(s) later
- Around 60% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 120 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
- 716x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 7.0 GB/s
- Around 12% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 82.563 vs 73.733
- Around 60% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1266.506 vs 792.44
- 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 70.779 vs 35.338
- Around 26% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 252.607 vs 200.825
- Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7779 vs 7218
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3720 vs 3691
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3360 vs 3335
- Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7779 vs 7218
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3720 vs 3691
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3360 vs 3335
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 18 August 2015 vs 22 January 2015 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 120 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 2 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 7.0 GB/s |
| Benchmarks | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 82.563 vs 73.733 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1266.506 vs 792.44 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.91 vs 4.888 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 70.779 vs 35.338 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 252.607 vs 200.825 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7779 vs 7218 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 vs 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 vs 3335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7779 vs 7218 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 vs 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 vs 3335 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
- Around 7% higher core clock speed: 1127 MHz vs 1050 MHz
- Around 7% higher texture fill rate: 72 billion / sec vs 67.2 GTexel / s
- Around 12% better floating-point performance: 2,413 gflops vs 2,150 gflops
- Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6065 vs 5526
- Around 68% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 675 vs 402
- Around 14% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 18326 vs 16049
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1127 MHz vs 1050 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 72 billion / sec vs 67.2 GTexel / s |
| Floating-point performance | 2,413 gflops vs 2,150 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6065 vs 5526 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 675 vs 402 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 18326 vs 16049 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 5526 | 6065 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 402 | 675 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 16049 | 18326 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 82.563 | 73.733 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1266.506 | 792.44 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.91 | 4.888 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 70.779 | 35.338 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 252.607 | 200.825 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7779 | 7218 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 | 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 | 3335 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7779 | 7218 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 | 3691 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 | 3335 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2283 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Code name | GM204 | GM206 |
| Launch date | 18 August 2015 | 22 January 2015 |
| Place in performance rating | 495 | 496 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | |
| Price now | $229.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 34.63 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1127 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 2,150 gflops | 2,413 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1,024 | 1024 |
| Texture fill rate | 67.2 GTexel / s | 72 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Transistor count | 5,200 million | 2,940 million |
| Boost clock speed | 1178 MHz | |
| CUDA cores | 1024 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| HDCP | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | large | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pins |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | |
| Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 400 Watt | |
| SLI options | 2x | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB / s | 112 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 7.0 GB/s |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
| CUDA | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro M3000M with others
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
ATIRadeon X850 XT
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
ATIFireGL V3300
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
NVIDIAQuadro NVS 510M
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 565v
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
AMDFirePro W7000
NVIDIAQuadro M3000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960
