GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M are two mobile GPUs from different eras and design philosophies, yet they land remarkably close in raw compute performance. The data places them within 0.6% of each other in the sole benchmark recorded, making this a comparison of architectural trade-offs and feature sets rather than a clear-cut performance hierarchy.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it tells a story of near-parity. The Quadro 3000M scores 3718, while the GeForce 825M scores 3694. This gives the Quadro 3000M a narrow 0.6% advantage over its younger rival. In practical terms, this delta is negligible; it falls well within run-to-run variance for most OpenCL workloads. The data shows a statistical tie, with both cards hovering around the 22nd percentile of all GPUs.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape reinforces this picture. The Quadro 3000M’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, scores 3717, just one point behind the Quadro, a 0% delta. The GeForce 825M also lists the GT 740M as a rival, with the 825M trailing it by 0.6%. The AMD Radeon HD 6770 sits 1.9% behind the Quadro 3000M and 1.2% behind the GeForce 825M. The GT 635M edges both, outpacing the Quadro 3000M by 0.6% and the 825M by 1.2%. The takeaway is clear: neither card has a meaningful compute advantage over the other, and both are bracketed by the same set of competitors within a few percentage points.

What matters more than the raw score is what each card does with that compute. The Quadro 3000M’s win, while technically a win, does not translate into a better experience across all workloads. The 825M’s higher shading unit count and clock speeds suggest it may handle certain parallel tasks differently, but the Geekbench OpenCL result shows that the older Fermi architecture holds its own in this specific test. The verdict from the data is that these are equivalent performers in synthetic compute, and any decision between them must rest on other factors.

Architecture Differences

The gap in release dates is substantial, with the Quadro 3000M launching in February 2011 and the GeForce 825M arriving nearly three years later in January 2014. This generational divide is reflected in their underlying architectures. The Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip on the Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors onto a 332 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The GeForce 825M, by contrast, uses the GK208 chip on the Kepler 2.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a more advanced 28 nm node. This newer process allows it to fit 1,020 million transistors onto just 87 mm², achieving a density of 11.7 million per square millimeter, nearly double that of the Fermi chip.

The core configurations diverge significantly. The Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GeForce 825M counters with 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This is a fundamental difference in design philosophy: the Kepler card has 60% more shaders but a quarter of the ROPs. The clock speeds tell a similar story. The Quadro 3000M’s base and boost clocks are not listed, but its memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The 825M has a listed base clock of 850 MHz and a boost clock of 941 MHz, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The 825M’s higher clocks and greater shader count yield a theoretical FP32 throughput of 722.7 GFLOPS, compared to 432.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 3000M. The pixel rate favors the 825M at 7.528 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is similarly lopsided at 30.11 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations are where the Quadro 3000M fights back. It offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 825M has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 14.40 GB/s, an 82% deficit. This disparity in memory bandwidth is enormous and will heavily influence real-world behavior in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. The Quadro 3000M also draws 75 W against the 825M’s 33 W, reflecting the older, less efficient process node.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 825M wins on raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rating of 722.7 GFLOPS is 67% higher than the Quadro 3000M’s 432.0 GFLOPS. This advantage, combined with higher pixel and texture rates, makes it the stronger candidate for tasks that are shader-bound and do not rely heavily on memory bandwidth. The 825M’s higher clock speeds and greater shader count should translate to better performance in compute-heavy applications like physics simulations or certain image processing filters, assuming the workload fits within its limited memory subsystem.

The Quadro 3000M wins on memory bandwidth and capacity. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is 5.5 times that of the 825M, and its 2 GB frame buffer is double the size. For workloads that are bandwidth-limited, such as large texture streaming, high-resolution framebuffer operations, or data-intensive compute kernels, the Quadro 3000M has a decisive edge. The 256-bit bus is a hallmark of a more serious workstation-oriented part, even if the architecture is older.

The Geekbench OpenCL result, where the Quadro 3000M edges ahead by 0.6%, suggests that the OpenCL workload in question may favor the Quadro’s superior bandwidth. It is worth remembering the 825M’s lower ROP count (8 versus 32) could bottleneck it in certain rendering scenarios, despite its higher theoretical pixel rate. The 825M’s pixel rate is computed from its clock speed and ROP count, but the actual fill-rate efficiency may be lower in practice.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, based solely on the data provided:

• Process Node: 40 nm (Quadro 3000M) vs 28 nm (GeForce 825M)
• Transistors: 1,950 million vs 1,020 million
• Die Size: 332 mm² vs 87 mm²
• Transistor Density: 5.9M / mm² vs 11.7M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not listed vs 850 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not listed vs 941 MHz
• Memory Clock: 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) vs 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 1024 MB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 80.00 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s
• Shading Units: 240 vs 384
• TMUs: 40 vs 32
• ROPs: 32 vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 4.500 GPixel/s vs 7.528 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 18.00 GTexel/s vs 30.11 GTexel/s
• FP32: 432.0 GFLOPS vs 722.7 GFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W vs 33 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs IGP
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• Vulkan Support: Not listed vs 1.2.175
• Release Date: 2011-02-21 vs 2014-01-26
• Predecessor: Quadro FX Mobile vs GeForce 700M
• Successor: Quadro Kepler-M vs GeForce 900M

The cards share the same DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 API support, as well as the same display outputs (Portable Device Dependent) and power connector configuration (None).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 0.6% higher than the GeForce 825M’s 3694. The delta is small enough to be considered a tie in practical terms.

Q: Does the GeForce 825M have more shading units?

A: Yes, the GeForce 825M has 384 shading units compared to the Quadro 3000M’s 240. This gives the 825M a theoretical FP32 throughput of 722.7 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 3000M is vastly superior in this regard, offering 80.00 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 bus, while the GeForce 825M manages only 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 bus.

Q: Is the GeForce 825M more power-efficient?

A: Yes, the 825M has a TDP of 33 W, less than half the Quadro 3000M’s 75 W. This is a direct result of the newer 28 nm process node versus the older 40 nm node.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GeForce 825M additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro 3000M has 2 GB of memory, which is double the 1024 MB found on the GeForce 825M. The Quadro also uses faster GDDR5 memory.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split: the GeForce 825M is the better compute part, while the Quadro 3000M is the better memory part. If the workload is shader-heavy and fits within a 1 GB frame buffer, the 825M’s 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and higher pixel/texture rates make it the logical choice. Its 33 W TDP also makes it far more suitable for thin-and-light systems or any application where thermals and battery life are a concern. The 825M’s support for Vulkan 1.2.175 also gives it a modern API advantage that the Quadro 3000M cannot match.

However, if the workload is bandwidth-sensitive or requires more than 1 GB of video memory, the Quadro 3000M is the only viable option. Its 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth is a massive advantage, and the 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer allows for larger textures and datasets. The Quadro’s 32 ROPs also suggest it can handle certain rasterization tasks more effectively, despite its lower clock speeds. The near-tie in Geekbench OpenCL, a 0.6% edge for the Quadro, indicates that this particular benchmark leans on memory bandwidth, which is the Quadro’s strength.

For the average user, the GeForce 825M is the more balanced and modern choice. It offers higher compute throughput, better efficiency, and a newer feature set at a fraction of the power draw. The Quadro 3000M is a legacy part from 2011 whose primary value today lies in its memory subsystem. Pick the Quadro 3000M only if the workload explicitly demands high memory bandwidth or a larger frame buffer; otherwise, the GeForce 825M’s architectural advantages make it the stronger all-rounder. The benchmark data shows they are equals in synthetic OpenCL, but the specification sheet reveals where each card’s true strengths lie.