NVIDIA GeForce 930A vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce 930A and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M are both built by NVIDIA, but they target entirely different segments of the mobile GPU market. The GeForce 930A is a low-power consumer part, while the Quadro M3000M is a professional workstation solution. Both chips come from the Maxwell family, but they represent two distinct generations of that architecture.

The GeForce 930A uses the GM108 chip, which is built on the original Maxwell architecture. This is a small, efficient design intended for thin-and-light laptops. The chip is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,020 million transistors packed into a die size of 77 mm². That works out to a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The Quadro M3000M, on the other hand, uses the GM204 chip, which belongs to the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. This is a substantially larger and more capable design. It is also built on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the die size is 398 mm², housing 5,200 million transistors. The transistor density is nearly identical at 13.1M per mm², which makes sense given the same process node.

The difference in scale is dramatic. The GM204 has roughly five times the transistor count of the GM108, and the die is more than five times larger. This directly translates into compute resources. The GeForce 930A has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is nearly three times the shader count, and four times the TMU and ROP counts.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The GeForce 930A uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s. That is a tenfold increase in memory bandwidth, which matters greatly for texture-heavy workloads and large datasets.

Clock speeds are closer than the hardware specs would suggest. The GeForce 930A runs at a base clock of 928 MHz with a boost of 941 MHz. The Quadro M3000M has a base of 823 MHz and a boost of 924 MHz. So the smaller chip actually runs slightly faster in terms of raw clock frequency, but it cannot compensate for the massive advantage in parallel resources.

Feature support differs at the API level. The GeForce 930A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro also has a wider PCIe interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 on the GeForce. Power consumption tells the story of their intended use cases: the GeForce 930A is rated at 33 W TDP and is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor, while the Quadro M3000M is a 75 W MXM module.

The Verdict

The data makes the hierarchy clear. The Quadro M3000M is in a different performance class entirely. In the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 16,646 against the GeForce 930A's 5,317. That is a 68.1% advantage for the Quadro, meaning the GeForce 930A delivers roughly one-third of the Quadro's compute throughput in this test.

The GeForce 930A sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro M3000M sits at the 27th percentile. However, those percentiles are based on different benchmark sets. The GeForce 930A has only one recorded benchmark score, an average of 5,317. The Quadro M3000M has nine recorded benchmark scores, with an average of 4,621. The Quadro's average is dragged down by its DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores, which are very low (98, 26, 42, and 23 respectively). Those likely reflect the professional drivers and workload characteristics, not raw gaming performance.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision is straightforward from the performance data. If the workload requires OpenCL compute, the Quadro M3000M is the only sensible pick. The GeForce 930A is suited to basic laptop graphics tasks, light media playback, and perhaps very light gaming. The Quadro M3000M is a workstation-class part for professional applications, CAD, and compute tasks. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the GeForce 930A wins, so the verdict is one-sided.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains only one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. This is a synthetic test that exercises general-purpose compute on the GPU, measuring raw arithmetic throughput and memory performance.

The results are decisive. The Quadro M3000M scores 16,646, while the GeForce 930A scores 5,317. The delta is -68.1% for the GeForce, meaning the Quadro is more than three times faster in this workload. To put that in perspective, the GeForce 930A's nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce 840M at 5,322, the GeForce GTX 980M at 5,308, and the GeForce 940M at 5,284. The Quadro M3000M's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970M at 4,628 and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 at 4,657.

Interestingly, the GeForce 930A's score of 5,317 is within 0.2% of the GeForce GTX 980M's score of 5,308. That is remarkable, as the GTX 980M is a high-end gaming GPU. The data suggests that in this particular OpenCL test, the GeForce 930A performs similarly to much larger consumer parts. However, the Quadro M3000M's score of 16,646 is in a completely different league, roughly 3.6 times higher than the GeForce 930A's score.

The other benchmark results for the Quadro M3000M provide additional context. In Passmark G3D, it scores 5,543, and in Passmark GPU Compute it scores 2,139. Its Passmark G2D score is 402. The DirectX-specific scores are very low: 98 in DirectX 9, 26 in DirectX 10, 42 in DirectX 11, and 23 in DirectX 12. These numbers suggest that the Quadro is not optimized for legacy DirectX gaming paths, which is typical for professional workstation drivers.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every hardware category. Here is a breakdown of the fields where they diverge:

• Chip: GM108 (GeForce) versus GM204 (Quadro)
• Architecture: Maxwell versus Maxwell 2.0
• Transistors: 1,020 million versus 5,200 million
• Die Size: 77 mm² versus 398 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.2M / mm² versus 13.1M / mm² (negligible difference)
• Base Clock: 928 MHz versus 823 MHz
• Boost Clock: 941 MHz versus 924 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory Type: DDR3 versus GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 16.02 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s
• Shading Units: 384 versus 1,024
• TMUs: 24 versus 64
• ROPs: 8 versus 32
• Pixel Rate: 7.528 GPixel/s versus 29.57 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 22.58 GTexel/s versus 59.14 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 722.7 GFLOPS versus 1.892 TFLOPS
• TDP: 33 W versus 75 W
• Slot Width: IGP versus MXM Module
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1)
• Release Date: March 2015 versus August 2015
• Predecessor: GeForce 800A versus Quadro Kepler-M
• Successor: none versus Quadro Pascal-M

The only fields where the two are identical are the process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), manufacturer (NVIDIA), API support for OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, power connectors (None), and display outputs (Portable Device Dependent).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, while the GeForce 930A has 384. That is nearly three times as many.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro M3000M delivers 160.4 GB/s over a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 memory, while the GeForce 930A manages only 16.02 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with DDR3. That is a tenfold difference.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture generation?

A: No. The GeForce 930A uses the original Maxwell architecture (GM108 chip), while the Quadro M3000M uses Maxwell 2.0 (GM204 chip). Both are on the same 28 nm TSMC process, but the Quadro's architecture is newer and more capable.

Q: How do they compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Quadro M3000M scores 16,646, which is 68.1% higher than the GeForce 930A's score of 5,317. The GeForce delivers only about one-third of the Quadro's OpenCL performance.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GeForce 930A supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The Quadro's feature level is higher.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The GeForce 930A has a TDP of 33 W, while the Quadro M3000M has a TDP of 75 W. The Quadro uses more than twice the power, which is expected given its much larger chip and memory subsystem.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data shows only one head-to-head test, and the Quadro M3000M wins it decisively. There are zero wins for the GeForce 930A in the database. That said, the two GPUs are designed for different purposes, and the data provides enough context to outline their respective strengths.

The Quadro M3000M is the clear winner for compute-heavy workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 16,646 is over three times the GeForce 930A's 5,317. This makes it suitable for professional applications that offload work to the GPU: rendering, simulation, finite element analysis, and other scientific or engineering tasks. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth is essential for holding large datasets in VRAM. The 256-bit memory bus and 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 compute give it substantial throughput for parallel workloads. The Quadro also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which offers more advanced graphics features.

The GeForce 930A is not competitive in any recorded benchmark against the Quadro. However, it has its own niche based on efficiency and simplicity. At 33 W TDP with an IGP form factor, it is designed for ultraportable laptops where power draw and heat are critical constraints. Its 384 shading units and 722.7 GFLOPS are modest but sufficient for basic display output, video playback, and light productivity work. The 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus is limited, but it keeps the cost and complexity low. It also has a slightly higher base clock (928 MHz) and boost clock (941 MHz) than the Quadro, though this does not translate into a performance win.

In terms of nearest rivals, the GeForce 930A's OpenCL score of 5,317 puts it within 0.1% of the GeForce 840M (5,322) and 0.2% of the GeForce GTX 980M (5,308). This suggests that for small, low-power GPUs, it performs competitively within its own class. The Quadro M3000M's average score of 4,621 places it within 0.1% of the GeForce GTX 970M (4,628), but its peak OpenCL score of 16,646 shows what it can do when pushed.

For a builder or buyer, the choice depends entirely on the workload. If the laptop is for professional use, CAD, 3D modeling, or compute tasks, the Quadro M3000M is the only option with the necessary performance. If the laptop is for basic use, web browsing, and light productivity, the GeForce 930A is the more power-efficient choice. There is no overlap in their optimal use cases.