NVIDIA GeForce 840M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap between these two mobile NVIDIA parts. In the two shared tests, the Quadro M3000M wins both outright, and the margin is substantial.

The GeForce 840M scores 5,764 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro M3000M scores 16,646. That represents a 65.4% advantage for the Quadro in raw compute throughput. The GeForce 840M trails by a wide margin here, and the data confirms the Quadro delivers nearly three times the OpenCL performance.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The GeForce 840M records 4,880, while the Quadro M3000M posts 16,668. The delta is 70.7% in favor of the Quadro. In practical terms, the Quadro is roughly 3.4 times faster in this API workload, which is a significant lead for any application leveraging Vulkan.

The head-to-head tally is 2 wins for the Quadro M3000M and 0 for the GeForce 840M. There are no tests in the database where the 840M comes out ahead. The average benchmark score for the Quadro is 4,621, while the GeForce 840M averages 5,322. Note that the averages include different test sets, so the direct comparisons above are the more reliable indicator of relative performance.

Looking at the nearest rivals data, the GeForce 840M sits close to several other low-end mobile parts. It is 0.1% ahead of the GeForce 930A, 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 980M in average score, 0.7% ahead of the GeForce 940M, and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M445. These deltas are small, indicating the 840M is grouped tightly with other entry-level laptop GPUs.

The Quadro M3000M, by contrast, is nearly identical in average score to the GeForce GTX 970M, with a delta of just 0.1% in favor of the GTX 970M. It also sits close to the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, both at 0.8% ahead, and it leads the AMD Radeon R5 M230 by 1%. This places the Quadro in a higher performance tier than the 840M, despite its lower average score due to the inclusion of lightweight DirectX tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The Quadro M3000M scores 16,646, which is 65.4% higher than the GeForce 840M's 5,764.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance difference?

A: The Quadro M3000M scores 16,668 versus 4,880 for the GeForce 840M, a 70.7% lead.

Q: Does the GeForce 840M win any head-to-head tests?

A: No. The database records 0 wins for the GeForce 840M and 2 wins for the Quadro M3000M.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The GeForce 840M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The GeForce 840M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Quadro M3000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die.

Q: What DirectX feature level does each support?

A: The GeForce 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but they are fundamentally different chips. The GeForce 840M uses the GM108S chip from the Maxwell architecture, while the Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip from the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The transistor density is nearly identical: 13.2M per mm² for the 840M and 13.1M per mm² for the Quadro. The die size, however, is very different. The 840M is a small chip at 77 mm², while the Quadro is more than five times larger at 398 mm².

The shading core counts reflect this scale difference. The GeForce 840M has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is 2.7 times more shaders, 4 times more TMUs, and 4 times more ROPs. Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both rely purely on traditional raster and compute pipelines.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The 840M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Memory bandwidth tells the story: the 840M manages 16.02 GB/s, while the Quadro reaches 160.4 GB/s, exactly ten times higher. The memory clock is also different, with the 840M at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) and the Quadro at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds run in the opposite direction. The GeForce 840M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz, which is higher than the Quadro's 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. The Quadro compensates with far more compute units, so its lower clocks do not hurt its overall throughput. The pixel rate for the 840M is 8.992 GPixel/s, while the Quadro delivers 29.57 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 17.98 GTexel/s for the 840M and 59.14 GTexel/s for the Quadro. FP32 performance is 863.2 GFLOPS for the 840M versus 1.892 TFLOPS for the Quadro, a 2.2 times advantage.

Power and physical design also differ. The GeForce 840M is rated at 33 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors. The Quadro is rated at 75 W TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, and also has no power connectors. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 840M and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro. Both have portable device dependent display outputs.

API support shows a small difference. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX support differs, with the 840M at version 12 (11_0) and the Quadro at version 12 (12_1). The GeForce 840M was released on 2014-03-11, while the Quadro M3000M came later on 2015-08-17. The 840M's predecessor is the GeForce 700M and its successor is the GeForce 900M. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Quadro M3000M dominates the GeForce 840M in both recorded head-to-head tests, with leads of 65.4% in OpenCL and 70.7% in Vulkan. The Quadro also offers more memory, a wider bus, and significantly higher compute throughput. The GeForce 840M does have a higher clock speed, but that does not compensate for the Quadro's larger chip and additional execution resources.

The GeForce 840M belongs in the entry-level mobile segment, as its nearest rivals in the database are the GeForce 930A, GeForce 940M, and Radeon R7 M445, all with average scores within 1% of each other. The Quadro M3000M sits alongside the GeForce GTX 970M in average score, placing it in a much higher performance class.

For workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M3000M is the clear choice based on the data. The GeForce 840M would only make sense for systems where power draw is a priority, since it is rated at 33 W versus 75 W for the Quadro, but that is a system design consideration rather than a performance advantage.

Specification Differences

| Field | GeForce 840M | Quadro M3000M |

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

| Chip | GM108S | GM204 |

| Architecture | Maxwell | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1029 MHz | 823 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 924 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 16 | 64 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.992 GPixel/s | 29.57 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.98 GTexel/s | 59.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 863.2 GFLOPS | 1.892 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Release Date | 2014-03-11 | 2015-08-17 |

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins every recorded benchmark comparison. In OpenCL, it delivers 16,646 points against 5,764, a lead that matters for compute tasks such as rendering, simulation, or any GPGPU workload. In Vulkan, its 16,668 points against 4,880 gives it a strong edge for modern game engines and cross-platform graphics APIs. The Quadro also has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is double the capacity and roughly ten times the bandwidth, so it is better suited for large textures, high-resolution rendering, or multi-application workflows.

The GeForce 840M has no benchmark wins in the database. Its strengths are limited to lower power consumption at 33 W versus 75 W, and a higher base clock of 1029 MHz versus 823 MHz. It also uses a smaller die and fewer transistors, which means it is a cheaper and simpler part to integrate into thin-and-light laptops. For a user who needs basic graphics output and very light compute, the 840M can suffice, but the data shows it does not compete with the Quadro in any measured performance test.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The Quadro M3000M is for demanding mobile workstations where compute performance, memory bandwidth, and API feature level are critical. The GeForce 840M is for low-power consumer laptops where the priority is minimal GPU capability and thermal headroom. The recorded benchmarks give the Quadro the win in every scenario where performance matters.