GPU Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro 3000M vs NVIDIA GeForce 920MX

The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX edges out the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M in the only direct benchmark available, posting a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4068 versus 3718, a 8.6% advantage. However, the Quadro 3000M holds a higher percentile ranking at 22nd percentile versus the 920MX's 21st percentile, reflecting its position among a different competitive set. These are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from different eras, and the data shows a closer contest than their release dates suggest.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX is the faster GPU in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4068 surpasses the Quadro 3000M's 3718 by 8.6%, making it the clear winner in the head-to-head comparison. The 920MX also delivers higher theoretical throughput across multiple metrics: 508.4 GFLOPS FP32 versus 432.0 GFLOPS, 23.83 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s, and 7.944 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s.

For users prioritizing compute performance in a low-power package, the 920MX is the logical choice. It achieves its advantage while consuming only 16 W TDP compared to the Quadro 3000M's 75 W, a dramatic efficiency gap that makes the 920MX far better suited for thin-and-light notebooks. The Quadro 3000M, however, offers a significantly wider memory bus at 256-bit versus 64-bit, and substantially higher memory bandwidth at 80.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. This makes the Quadro 3000M potentially more capable in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though the benchmark data does not directly measure that scenario.

The 920MX also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The 920MX's Geekbench Vulkan score of 2987 provides additional evidence of its modern API capabilities. For users needing legacy compatibility or the Quadro brand's professional positioning, the 3000M remains an option, but the data favors the 920MX for performance and efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural generations from NVIDIA. The Quadro 3000M is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF104 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 40 nm process. It packs 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The GeForce 920MX, by contrast, uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process. It contains 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher density of 13.2M per mm².

Core configuration differs notably between the two. The Quadro 3000M features 240 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The 920MX has 256 shading units, slightly more, but only 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This configuration explains why the 920MX achieves higher texture and pixel rates despite its smaller memory subsystem: 23.83 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s, and 7.944 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture presents the starkest contrast. The Quadro 3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s bandwidth at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The 920MX also has 2 GB, but uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Quadro 3000M's bandwidth advantage is substantial, more than 5.5 times that of the 920MX, though the 920MX compensates with higher clock speeds: 965 MHz base and 993 MHz boost versus no listed base or boost clocks for the Quadro 3000M.

Power consumption tells a story of generational efficiency gains. The Quadro 3000M is rated at 75 W TDP, while the 920MX draws just 16 W, a 79% reduction. Both use MXM Module slot width and require no power connectors. The bus interfaces differ: the Quadro 3000M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the 920MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GeForce 920MX wins with a score of 4068 against the Quadro 3000M's 3718. This represents a delta of -8.6% from the 920MX's perspective, meaning the Quadro 3000M trails by 8.6%. While this is a clear victory for the 920MX, the margin is modest in absolute terms, a difference of 350 points.

Context from the nearest rivals adds depth. The Quadro 3000M's closest competitor is the GeForce GT 740M at 3717 points (0% delta), followed by the GT 635M at 3740 (-0.6%), the GeForce 825M at 3694 (0.6%), and the Radeon HD 6770 at 3649 (1.9%). This places the Quadro 3000M in a tightly clustered group where a few points separate GPUs. The 920MX's rivals include the GeForce GT 545 at 3594 (-1.8%), the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation at 3596 (-1.9%), the GT 735M at 3616 (-2.4%), and the Quadro 2000M at 3434 (2.7%). The 920MX sits above this group, though the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation's proximity is notable given its name implies a much newer product.

The 920MX also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 2987, which provides a separate data point for modern API performance, a metric unavailable for the Quadro 3000M. In the overall benchmark landscape, the Quadro 3000M's average benchmark score is 3718, while the 920MX's average is 3528, reflecting that the 920MX's OpenCL strength is somewhat offset by other considerations in its aggregate profile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX wins with a score of 4068, which is 8.6% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's 3718.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro 3000M offers 80.00 GB/s bandwidth via a 256-bit GDDR5 interface, while the 920MX provides 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit DDR3 bus, a substantial advantage for the Quadro 3000M.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a 75 W TDP, while the 920MX consumes only 16 W TDP, making the 920MX dramatically more power-efficient.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the 920MX also supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 2987, while the Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do their theoretical compute rates differ?

A: The 920MX delivers 508.4 GFLOPS FP32 versus the Quadro 3000M's 432.0 GFLOPS, and also leads in texture rate (23.83 GTexel/s vs 18.00 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (7.944 GPixel/s vs 4.500 GPixel/s).

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro 3000M ranks in the 22nd percentile, slightly above the 920MX's 21st percentile, despite the 920MX winning the direct benchmark comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 920MX wins in raw compute performance, as demonstrated by its Geekbench OpenCL victory and higher theoretical throughput rates. It also dominates in power efficiency with a 16 W TDP versus the Quadro 3000M's 75 W, making it the appropriate choice for ultra-portable systems where thermals and battery life are critical. The 920MX's Vulkan 1.4 support and Geekbench Vulkan score of 2987 give it an edge in modern API workloads that the Quadro 3000M cannot access. Its higher shading unit count (256 versus 240) and superior texture and pixel fill rates make it better suited for graphics-intensive tasks that leverage these capabilities.

The Quadro 3000M wins in memory bandwidth by a wide margin: 80.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. This 5.5x advantage could prove decisive in bandwidth-bound workloads such as large dataset processing, certain compute tasks, or high-resolution texture streaming. Its 256-bit memory bus versus the 920MX's 64-bit bus also suggests better performance in multi-tasking scenarios where memory pressure is high. The Quadro 3000M's 32 ROPs, four times the 920MX's 8, may benefit certain rasterization-heavy workloads despite its lower overall pixel rate. Its 75 W TDP, while power-hungry, indicates a design that can sustain higher sustained loads in a larger chassis.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the decision hinges on workload characteristics. The 920MX is the superior general-purpose performer with better efficiency and modern API support. The Quadro 3000M's memory bandwidth advantage makes it theoretically stronger for specific bandwidth-sensitive tasks, though the benchmark data does not directly confirm this advantage in practice. The 920MX's higher average benchmark score in its competitive set, positioned above rivals like the GT 545 and GT 735M, reinforces its overall performance edge, while the Quadro 3000M sits mid-pack among its nearest competitors.