NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and NVIDIA GeForce 830M represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics from the same manufacturer. The data shows a close contest in raw compute, but the underlying design philosophies could not be more different. The Quadro K3000M, a professional workstation part from 2012, is built on a massive chip with a wide memory bus, while the GeForce 830M, a consumer part from 2014, uses a smaller, more efficient design. Benchmark results indicate these are not just two versions of the same idea, but rather two solutions aimed at very different workloads. The single head-to-head benchmark shows a narrow victory for the 830M, yet the architectural chasm between them suggests the real story is about what each does best beyond that one test.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits the two GPUs almost perfectly along architectural lines. The GeForce 830M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, but the Quadro K3000M dominates in raw throughput metrics that matter for professional and compute-heavy tasks.

The GeForce 830M takes the win in the available benchmark suite. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 4324 against the Quadro’s 4241, a delta of -1.9% from the Quadro’s perspective. This is a slim margin, but it is a win nonetheless. The 830M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3590, a test the Quadro K3000M does not have a recorded result for. This suggests the newer architecture has better support for modern APIs, even if the performance is not overwhelming.

The Quadro K3000M, however, wins decisively in the specifications that drive sustained, high-precision workloads. It delivers a pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s. The 830M counters with 9.200 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s. The Quadro’s texture rate is 70% higher, giving it a clear advantage in any task that involves complex texture filtering or heavy fragment shader work. Its FP32 performance of 753.4 GFLOPS is also significantly higher than the 830M’s 588.8 GFLOPS, a 28% lead in raw floating-point math. This makes the Quadro the stronger candidate for compute tasks like scientific simulation or rendering, where raw throughput is king.

The memory subsystem further cements this split. The Quadro K3000M uses a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 memory, yielding 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The 830M uses a 64-bit bus with DDR3, delivering just 14.40 GB/s. That is a 6.2x difference in memory bandwidth. For any workload that relies on streaming large datasets or high-resolution textures, the Quadro’s advantage is enormous. The 830M’s higher clock speeds (1082 MHz base vs 654 MHz base) help it in latency-sensitive tasks, but they cannot compensate for the massive bandwidth deficit.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different scales. The Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip, a Kepler architecture design with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The GeForce 830M uses the GM108 chip, a Maxwell architecture design with just 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. This is a 3.5x difference in transistor count and a 3.8x difference in die size. The 830M is more densely packed, with 13.2M transistors per mm² versus the Quadro’s 12.0M / mm², but the sheer scale of the Quadro is overwhelming.

This scale translates directly into execution resources. The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GeForce 830M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro has more than double the shading units and triple the ROPs. This is why the Quadro’s fillrate and compute numbers are so much higher, despite the 830M’s higher clock speeds.

The memory interface is another major divider. The Quadro’s 256-bit bus is four times wider than the 830M’s 64-bit bus. Even though the Quadro’s memory runs at a lower effective speed (2.8 Gbps vs 1800 Mbps for the 830M), the wider bus gives it a massive bandwidth advantage. The 830M compensates with a higher base clock (1082 MHz vs 654 MHz) and boost clock (1150 MHz vs 654 MHz), which helps its ALU throughput but does nothing for memory-bound tasks.

Architecturally, the Quadro is Kepler, while the 830M is Maxwell. The Maxwell architecture is more efficient per clock, which is why the 830M achieves a similar OpenCL score with far fewer resources. The 830M also supports a newer Vulkan API version (1.4 vs 1.2.175 for the Quadro), indicating better modern API support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, so that is not a differentiator.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results are remarkably close. The GeForce 830M scores 4324, while the Quadro K3000M scores 4241. This gives the 830M a 1.9% advantage. This is a narrow win, but it is interesting because the Quadro has such a large theoretical advantage in raw compute. The 830M’s higher clock speeds and more efficient Maxwell architecture likely help it in this particular workload, which may not be heavily memory-bandwidth-bound.

For context, the Quadro’s score of 4241 places it near the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, -0.6% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, 1.2% delta). The 830M’s score of 4324 places it near the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.1% delta). The 830M is also the only one of the two with a Vulkan benchmark score, hitting 3590.

These numbers suggest that in the specific OpenCL workload, the two GPUs are essentially equivalent. The 1.9% difference is within the margin of noise for such tests. However, the broader specification data tells a different story. If a workload is memory-bound, the Quadro’s 89.60 GB/s bandwidth will crush the 830M’s 14.40 GB/s. If a workload is latency-bound or heavily shader-dependent, the 830M’s higher clocks (1150 MHz boost vs 654 MHz) might keep it competitive. The data shows a single point of contact, but the architectural data implies the two diverge sharply outside that narrow window.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different user profiles. The NVIDIA GeForce 830M is the winner in the available benchmark, but that is the only data point. Its 4324 OpenCL score edges out the Quadro’s 4241, and it offers Vulkan support that the Quadro lacks. It does this with a 33 W TDP, less than half the Quadro’s 75 W TDP. For a consumer laptop user who needs moderate graphics performance for everyday tasks and light gaming, the 830M is the more efficient and modern choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, however, is the more powerful silicon in almost every measurable way except clock speed. Its 753.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, 89.60 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and 32 ROPs are all vastly superior to the 830M’s numbers. The data indicates this is a workstation part designed for professional applications like CAD, 3D modeling, and scientific compute, where those specs matter more than a 1.9% OpenCL benchmark delta. Its 25th percentile ranking versus the 830M’s 24th percentile is a wash, but the underlying hardware is not.

The choice is not about which is "better" in a general sense. It is about which matches the workload. For a professional needing raw throughput and bandwidth, the Quadro K3000M is the data-supported pick. For a consumer on a power budget who wants modern API support and a competitive OpenCL score, the GeForce 830M is the logical choice. The 830M wins the benchmark, but the Quadro wins the spec sheet.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher score in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M scores 4324, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, giving the 830M a 1.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro K3000M have more memory bandwidth than the GeForce 830M?

A: Yes. The Quadro K3000M has a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 memory, providing 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 830M has a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory, providing only 14.40 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute performance between the two?

A: The Quadro K3000M delivers 753.4 GFLOPS, which is significantly higher than the GeForce 830M’s 588.8 GFLOPS, a 28% lead for the Quadro.

Q: Which GPU supports the Vulkan API, and what version?

A: The GeForce 830M supports Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro K3000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The 830M also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 3590, while the Quadro has no such benchmark result.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the GeForce 830M has a TDP of 33 W. The 830M is more power-efficient.

Q: Are the two GPUs comparable in transistor count?

A: No. The Quadro K3000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GeForce 830M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the data provided.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K3000M | NVIDIA GeForce 830M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |

| Chip | GK104 | GM108 |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) | GeForce 800M |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 654 MHz | 1082 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 654 MHz | 1150 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2.8 Gbps effective | 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.60 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 576 | 256 |

| TMUs | 48 | 16 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.848 GPixel/s | 9.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.39 GTexel/s | 18.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 753.4 GFLOPS | 588.8 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2014-03-11 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | GeForce 900M |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 4241 | 3957 |

| Percentile Vs All GPUs | 25 | 24 |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 4241 | 4324 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | N/A | 3590 |