GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and NVIDIA GeForce 920M are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from different eras and design philosophies. The Quadro 3000M is a Fermi-based professional workstation part from 2011, while the GeForce 920M is a Kepler-based consumer chip from 2015. The benchmark data shows they land in nearly the same performance tier, but their underlying characteristics make them suited for very different tasks. This analysis covers exactly where they stand relative to each other and their immediate rivals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is remarkably close. The GeForce 920M scores 3725 points, while the Quadro 3000M scores 3718 points. That is a delta of -0.2% from the Quadro's perspective, meaning the 920M is technically the winner, but the margin is effectively negligible, a 7-point difference on a four-digit score. For raw compute throughput in this specific test, neither card holds a meaningful advantage over the other.

The individual average scores tell a similar story. The Quadro 3000M has an average benchmark score of 3718, while the GeForce 920M's average is 3287. That gap is larger than the direct head-to-head suggests, and it reveals something important: the 920M's average is dragged down by its Vulkan score of 2849, a test the Quadro does not have an entry for. In pure OpenCL, the two are effectively tied.

Looking at their nearest rivals adds context. The Quadro 3000M sits at the 22nd percentile of all GPUs, with its closest competitor being the GeForce GT 740M at 3717 (0% delta). It also edges out the GeForce GT 635M by -0.6% (meaning the 635M is slightly faster at 3740), and beats the GeForce 825M by 0.6% (3694) and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 by 1.9% (3649). This places the Quadro in a tight cluster of mid-range mobile parts from its generation.

The GeForce 920M sits at the 20th percentile, slightly lower overall. Its nearest rival is the GeForce GT 730M at 3316, which is 0.9% behind the 920M's average. The Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) is 1.4% behind, and the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389) is 3% behind. The 920M beats the GeForce GT 640 (3210) by 2.4%. The key takeaway is that while the 920M wins its head-to-head against the Quadro in OpenCL by a hair, its average score is lower because the Vulkan result pulls it down. The Quadro's single score is consistent, while the 920M's performance is more variable depending on the API.

The Verdict

The data says these two GPUs are performance peers in compute workloads, but the choice between them comes down to what you are optimizing for. The Quadro 3000M offers a 256-bit memory bus and 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is a massive advantage over the 920M's 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s. If your workload is memory-bandwidth-bound, the Quadro is the clear pick despite the near-identical OpenCL score.

The GeForce 920M, on the other hand, has a much newer architecture (Kepler 2.0 vs Fermi), a smaller 28 nm process node, and a far lower TDP of 33 W compared to 75 W. It also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, which the Quadro does not support at all. For any modern API compatibility or power-constrained scenario, the 920M is the better choice.

The benchmark results indicate that in pure compute, there is no winner, the 920M's 0.2% edge in OpenCL is meaningless in real-world terms. The decision hinges on the rest of the specification sheet. The Quadro's memory subsystem and professional lineage (Fermi architecture, MXM-B 3.0 interface) suggest it was built for workstation tasks where bandwidth matters. The 920M's low power draw and modern API support make it a better fit for everyday consumer use in a thin laptop.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro 3000M wins on memory bandwidth. With 80.00 GB/s versus the 920M's 14.40 GB/s, the Quadro has over 5.5 times the memory throughput. This is a decisive advantage for workloads that stream large datasets, such as professional CAD textures or scientific visualization, even if the raw compute scores are identical. The 256-bit bus width is a structural advantage that the 920M cannot overcome.

NVIDIA GeForce 920M wins on efficiency and modern features. At 33 W TDP, it draws less than half the power of the Quadro's 75 W. It also offers Vulkan support (1.2.175), which the Quadro lacks entirely. The 920M's higher pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s vs 4.500 GPixel/s) and texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s vs 18.00 GTexel/s) indicate better fill-rate performance for rasterization, despite having fewer ROPs (8 vs 32). The 920M also has more shading units (384 vs 240) and a higher FP32 throughput (732.7 GFLOPS vs 432.0 GFLOPS), meaning it is compute-strong when the API and drivers cooperate.

The Quadro wins on raw memory capacity per channel. Both have 2 GB, but the Quadro's GDDR5 memory type and 256-bit bus make that 2 GB far more usable for large working sets. The 920M's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus will bottleneck far earlier.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The GeForce 920M scores 3725 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 3000M scores 3718. The 920M wins by 0.2%, which is a negligible margin of 7 points.

Q: Does the GeForce 920M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the GeForce 920M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed, so it is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 3000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the GeForce 920M's 14.40 GB/s. This is a difference of over 5.5 times in favor of the Quadro.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the GeForce 920M has a TDP of 33 W. The 920M is less than half the power draw.

Q: Which GPU has better fill rates?

A: The GeForce 920M has a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s. The Quadro 3000M is lower at 4.500 GPixel/s and 18.00 GTexel/s, respectively.

Q: How do these compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 3000M is within 0.6% of the GeForce GT 635M and 0% of the GT 740M. The 920M is 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GT 730M and 1.4% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 530 in average score.

Architecture Differences

The Quadro 3000M is built on the GF104 chip using the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The GeForce 920M uses the GK208B chip with the Kepler 2.0 architecture, on a 28 nm process also at TSMC. It has 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 87 mm² die, with a higher density of 11.7M per mm².

The compute configuration differs significantly. The Quadro has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The 920M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, but only 8 ROPs. Despite fewer ROPs, the 920M has a higher pixel rate (7.632 vs 4.500 GPixel/s) because of its higher clock speeds. The 920M's base and boost clocks are both 954 MHz, while the Quadro's core clocks are not listed, but its memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) versus the 920M's 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The architecture generations are split by a major gap. The Quadro is from the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation, while the 920M is from the GeForce 900M generation. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The 920M's predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile. The 920M is the newer part by four years in release timing.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every core specification. The process node is 40 nm for the Quadro versus 28 nm for the 920M. Transistor count is 1,950 million versus 1,020 million, and die size is 332 mm² versus 87 mm². The memory subsystem is the biggest divergence: the Quadro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the 920M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s.

The shading units count is 240 for the Quadro and 384 for the 920M. TMUs are 40 versus 32. ROPs are 32 versus 8. The FP32 compute is 432.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 732.7 GFLOPS for the 920M. The TDP is 75 W versus 33 W. The slot width is MXM Module for the Quadro and IGP for the 920M. The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support is a key differentiator. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 920M adds Vulkan 1.2.175 while the Quadro has no Vulkan entry. The memory clock is 625 MHz for the Quadro and 900 MHz for the 920M. The 920M has explicit base and boost clocks of 954 MHz, while the Quadro's core clocks are not listed. Power connectors are None for both, and display outputs are portable-device dependent for both.