NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two mobile GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce 930M wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 5046 against the Quadro 3000M’s 3718, a 35.7% advantage. The GeForce 930M also holds a higher percentile ranking at 26 versus the Quadro 3000M’s 22, and its average benchmark score of 4388 far exceeds the Quadro 3000M’s 3718.

For users seeking raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the GeForce 930M is the definitive choice according to the recorded data. Its 384 shading units and Maxwell architecture deliver a substantial performance lead. The Quadro 3000M, despite its larger 256-bit memory bus and higher texture fill rate, falls behind in the only benchmark where both are measured. The data suggests that the GeForce 930M is the better pick for general compute tasks, while the Quadro 3000M’s role appears limited to scenarios where its specific feature set, such as the wider memory interface, might be relevant. However, based strictly on the benchmark results, the GeForce 930M is the superior performer.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M is faster, scoring 5046 points compared to the Quadro 3000M’s 3718 points. This represents a 35.7% lead for the GeForce 930M.

Q: How does the GeForce 930M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GeForce 930M’s average benchmark score is 4388. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M by a negligible 0.5%, and leads the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 by 0.7%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 by 1.2%, and the AMD FirePro W2100 by 2.2%.

Q: What is the performance context for the Quadro 3000M?

A: The Quadro 3000M’s average benchmark score is 3718. It is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, showing a 0% delta. It leads the GeForce GT 635M by 0.6% and is 0.6% behind the GeForce 825M. The AMD Radeon HD 6770 is 1.9% behind the Quadro 3000M.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both the GeForce 930M and the Quadro 3000M support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GeForce 930M also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 3000M does not list Vulkan support.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The GeForce 930M has a significantly higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm², compared to the Quadro 3000M’s 5.9M per mm². This is despite the Quadro 3000M having nearly double the total transistor count.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a much higher memory bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s thanks to its 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory. The GeForce 930M, using DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, has a bandwidth of only 12.80 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The GeForce 930M and Quadro 3000M represent two distinct architectural eras from NVIDIA. The GeForce 930M is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, utilizing a 28 nm process at TSMC. This node is more advanced than the Quadro 3000M’s 40 nm process, which uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip. The process advantage is reflected in transistor density: the GeForce 930M packs 13.2M transistors per mm² within a small 77 mm² die, housing 1,020 million transistors. The Quadro 3000M, by contrast, has a much larger 332 mm² die containing 1,950 million transistors, but its density is only 5.9M per mm².

The compute core configurations differ substantially in composition. The GeForce 930M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro 3000M has fewer shading units at 240, but more TMUs at 40 and more ROPs at 32. This suggests the Quadro 3000M is designed for different workload characteristics, with a stronger focus on texture and pixel throughput relative to its shader count. The recorded pixel rates are nearly identical, with the Quadro 3000M at 4.500 GPixel/s and the GeForce 930M at 4.392 GPixel/s, but the Quadro 3000M’s texture rate of 18.00 GTexel/s exceeds the GeForce 930M’s 13.18 GTexel/s.

Memory technology also reflects the generational gap. The GeForce 930M uses DDR3 memory, while the Quadro 3000M uses GDDR5. The Quadro 3000M’s memory interface is a wide 256-bit bus, compared to the GeForce 930M’s 64-bit bus. This gives the Quadro 3000M a massive bandwidth advantage at 80.00 GB/s versus 12.00 GB/s, a factor of over six times. The GeForce 930M compensates with a higher memory clock of 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective data rate), but the Quadro 3000M’s 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) cannot overcome the bus width difference.

The API feature sets show another key divergence: the GeForce 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GeForce 930M is part of the GeForce 900M generation and is marked as the successor to the GeForce 800M, with the GeForce 10 Mobile as its successor. The Quadro 3000M belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation, succeeding the Quadro FX Mobile and preceding the Quadro Kepler-M.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several key differences between the two GPUs. The process node differs: the GeForce 930M uses a 28 nm process, while the Quadro 3000M uses a 40 nm process. Transistor counts are 1,020 million for the GeForce 930M and 1,950 million for the Quadro 3000M, with die sizes of 77 mm² and 332 mm² respectively. The clock speeds are different: the GeForce 930M has a base and boost clock of 549 MHz, while the Quadro 3000M does not list base or boost clocks. Memory clocks also differ: the GeForce 930M runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective), and the Quadro 3000M at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations are distinct. Both have 2 GB of memory, but the GeForce 930M uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 12.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 3000M uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The compute units differ: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the GeForce 930M; 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the Quadro 3000M. The recorded rates show a pixel rate of 4.392 GPixel/s for the GeForce 930M and 4.500 GPixel/s for the Quadro 3000M, a texture rate of 13.18 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 421.6 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS.

The physical and power characteristics also differ. The GeForce 930M has a TDP of 33 W and is listed as an IGP form factor, while the Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module form factor. The bus interfaces are different: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the GeForce 930M and MXM-B (3.0) for the Quadro 3000M. Both use no power connectors. The release dates are separated by about four years, with the GeForce 930M released in March 2015 and the Quadro 3000M in February 2011. Both are marked as end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the GeForce 930M scored 5046, while the Quadro 3000M scored 3718. This gives the GeForce 930M a decisive 35.7% victory. This is a substantial margin that indicates a significant generational improvement in compute performance, despite the Quadro 3000M having a higher FP32 rating (432.0 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS) and a much higher memory bandwidth. The GeForce 930M’s win suggests that architectural efficiency from the Maxwell design and the higher shading unit count play a more critical role in OpenCL workloads than raw memory throughput.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this result. The GeForce 930M has an average benchmark score of 4388, which is 670 points higher than the Quadro 3000M’s 3718. This is an 18% improvement in overall average score. The GeForce 930M also has a higher percentile ranking at 26 versus 22, indicating it outranks a greater share of all GPUs in the database.

The GeForce 930M’s nearest rivals in the database, based on average score, include the GeForce GT 645M (4411, 0.5% higher), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360, 0.7% lower), the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, 1.2% lower), and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 2.2% lower). The Quadro 3000M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GT 740M (3717, 0% delta), the GeForce GT 635M (3740, 0.6% higher), the GeForce 825M (3694, 0.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, 1.9% lower). This places the GeForce 930M in a performance bracket that is roughly 18% higher than the Quadro 3000M’s bracket.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 930M wins in compute performance, as demonstrated by the Geekbench OpenCL result with a 35.7% lead. It also wins in architectural efficiency, with a smaller die, higher transistor density, and lower TDP of 33 W compared to 75 W. This makes it the more suitable option for workloads that rely on shader compute and OpenCL acceleration. Its support for Vulkan 1.4 also provides a modern API advantage that the Quadro 3000M lacks. The GeForce 930M’s higher percentile ranking (26 versus 22) and higher average benchmark score (4388 versus 3718) further consolidate its position as the stronger overall performer in the database.

The Quadro 3000M wins in memory bandwidth, with 80.00 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s. Its wider 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory type provide a clear advantage for memory-bound tasks, even though this does not translate to a win in the recorded OpenCL benchmark. It also has higher texture and pixel rates, 18.00 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s and 4.500 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s respectively, and a slightly higher FP32 rating of 432.0 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS. These specifications suggest the Quadro 3000M could be more capable in tasks that heavily utilize texture fetching or pixel processing, but the benchmark data does not include such tests.

The data implies a trade-off: the GeForce 930M is the better choice for compute-centric applications and modern API compatibility, while the Quadro 3000M’s strengths are confined to its memory subsystem and fill rates. Given that the only recorded head-to-head result favors the GeForce 930M by a wide margin, the database clearly favors it as the more performant GPU overall. The Quadro 3000M remains relevant only in the specific context of legacy workloads that might exploit its memory bandwidth, but no benchmark evidence supports that in the current data.