NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly here: the NVIDIA GeForce 930M wins the only head-to-head test available, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M fails to secure a single win. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 930M posts a score of 5046 against the K3000M’s 4241, a 19% advantage. That is not a marginal gap; it is a decisive margin in raw compute throughput for the younger mobile part.

However, the story is not solely about the head-to-head result. The 930M’s average benchmark score of 4388 places it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the K3000M’s 4241 average sits in the 25th percentile. The percentile difference is just one point, which suggests that in a broader field of GPUs, these two are closer than the 19% head-to-head delta implies. The 930M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GT 645M (deltaPct -0.5%), Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (deltaPct 0.7%), and GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (deltaPct 1.2%). The K3000M’s nearest rivals include the Radeon Vega 3 (deltaPct -0.6%), GeForce GTX 460M (deltaPct -1%), and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (deltaPct 1.2%). Both parts hover around the same performance tier when judged against the wider GPU landscape.

Where each one wins is therefore a matter of context. The 930M wins outright in the single available benchmark, and it also holds a slight edge in average score (4388 vs 4241). The K3000M does not win any benchmark in this data set, but its percentile ranking and rival deltas indicate it is not far behind. For a user prioritizing pure OpenCL compute, the 930M is the clear pick. For anyone looking at the broader performance envelope, the two are effectively peers, with the 930M holding a modest but consistent lead.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two NVIDIA parts is generational and fundamental. The GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip built on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The Quadro K3000M, by contrast, uses the GK104 chip on the older Kepler architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with 3,540 million transistors spread across a much larger 294 mm² die, giving a lower density of 12.0M per mm².

The transistor count delta is stark: the K3000M has more than three times the transistors of the 930M. Yet that hardware advantage does not translate into a performance win in the measured benchmark, largely because of how those resources are configured. The K3000M fields 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, versus the 930M’s 384 shaders, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The K3000M also has a wider memory interface: 256-bit versus 64-bit, and uses faster GDDR5 memory rather than DDR3.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The K3000M runs at 654 MHz base and boost, while the 930M runs lower at 549 MHz for both. Despite the lower clock, the 930M achieves higher memory bandwidth efficiency per pin? No, the K3000M’s bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s for the 930M — a 7x advantage for the Quadro. The K3000M also leads in pixel rate (7.848 GPixel/s vs 4.392 GPixel/s) and texture rate (31.39 GTexel/s vs 13.18 GTexel/s). In raw throughput, the K3000M’s FP32 output is 753.4 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS for the 930M.

The 930M counters with architectural efficiency. Maxwell generally extracts more performance per transistor than Kepler, and the data supports that: the 930M wins the OpenCL test despite having far fewer resources. The 930M also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K3000M tops out at Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Power draw differs significantly: the 930M is rated at 33 W TDP versus 75 W for the K3000M, and the 930M is an IGP form factor while the K3000M is an MXM module.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the GeForce 930M. The 930M scores 5046, the Quadro K3000M scores 4241, and the delta is 19% in favor of the 930M. That is a substantial margin for a mobile GPU comparison, especially given the K3000M’s theoretical compute advantages.

Diving into the numbers, the K3000M should, on paper, dominate. It has 50% more shading units (576 vs 384), double the TMUs (48 vs 24), four times the ROPs (32 vs 8), and nearly double the FP32 throughput (753.4 GFLOPS vs 421.6 GFLOPS). Its memory bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s — seven times the 930M’s 12.80 GB/s. Yet the 930M wins by 19%. This inverts the traditional expectation that more hardware equals more performance.

The explanation lies in architecture and workload. Maxwell’s scheduler and memory compression are more efficient than Kepler’s, and the 930M’s lower clock (549 MHz vs 654 MHz) is offset by better instruction-level parallelism. The OpenCL workload in Geekbench likely favors the 930M’s architecture. The K3000M’s higher pixel rate (7.848 vs 4.392 GPixel/s) and texture rate (31.39 vs 13.18 GTexel/s) would likely win in gaming or graphics-heavy tasks, but those are not measured here.

For context, the 930M’s nearest rival, the GeForce GT 645M, scores 4411, which is 0.5% lower than the 930M’s average of 4388? No — the delta is -0.5% from the 930M’s perspective, meaning the GT 645M is slightly lower. The K3000M’s nearest rival, the Radeon Vega 3, scores 4268, which is 0.6% higher than the K3000M’s 4241. The 930M also outperforms the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 in this specific test (5046 vs 4335 average), though that is an anomaly given the RTX 4070’s vastly higher tier.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M wins decisively. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 5046 versus 4241 for the Quadro K3000M, a 19% advantage.

Q: Does the Quadro K3000M have more raw hardware resources?

A: Yes. The K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus 384 shaders, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs on the 930M. Its FP32 output is 753.4 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s.

Q: Why does the 930M win despite having fewer resources?

A: The 930M uses the newer Maxwell architecture, which is more efficient per transistor. The K3000M is based on the older Kepler design. The 930M also has a lower TDP (33 W vs 75 W) and a smaller die (77 mm² vs 294 mm²).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 930M has an average benchmark score of 4388, placing it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs. The K3000M averages 4241, in the 25th percentile. The gap is small in percentile terms.

Q: What are their closest rivals?

A: For the 930M, the nearest rivals are the GeForce GT 645M (avg 4411, delta -0.5%), Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (avg 4360, delta 0.7%), and GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (avg 4335, delta 1.2%). For the K3000M, the nearest are the Radeon Vega 3 (avg 4268, delta -0.6%), GeForce GTX 460M (avg 4282, delta -1%), and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (avg 4193, delta 1.2%).

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the K3000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The chip and architecture are entirely different: GM108S on Maxwell for the 930M, GK104 on Kepler for the K3000M. Both use TSMC’s 28 nm process, but transistor counts diverge sharply — 1,020 million for the 930M versus 3,540 million for the K3000M. Die size follows suit: 77 mm² versus 294 mm², with transistor densities of 13.2M/mm² and 12.0M/mm² respectively.

Clock speeds are lower on the 930M: 549 MHz base and boost versus 654 MHz base and boost on the K3000M. Memory configurations differ fundamentally. The 930M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 12.80 GB/s bandwidth and 800 MHz memory clock (1600 Mbps effective). The K3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth and 700 MHz memory clock (2.8 Gbps effective).

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the K3000M. It has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs on the 930M. Pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s versus 4.392 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 753.4 GFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS.

Power and form factor also differ. The 930M is rated at 33 W TDP and is an IGP, while the K3000M is rated at 75 W and is an MXM Module. The 930M uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface; the K3000M uses MXM-B (3.0). Neither has power connectors. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for both. API support matches for DirectX (12 (11_0)) and OpenGL (4.6), but Vulkan differs: 1.4 on the 930M versus 1.2.175 on the K3000M.

Release timing is also distinct: the 930M launched on March 12, 2015, while the K3000M launched on May 31, 2012. The 930M’s predecessor is the GeForce 800M and successor is GeForce 10 Mobile; the K3000M’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. Both are end-of-life products.