NVIDIA GeForce 930M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a decisive performance gap between these two mobile GPUs. In the only two directly comparable benchmark tests, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins both outright, with margins that are nothing short of overwhelming.

The most dramatic difference appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro M3000M scores 16,668 against the GeForce 930M's 3,729. That is a 347% advantage for the Quadro — the benchmark result indicates the M3000M is roughly four and a half times faster in this compute-oriented test. For context, the M3000M's nearest rivals in the overall average benchmark score sit within a single percentage point: the GeForce GTX 970M trails by just 0.1%, and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 matches it at a 0.8% deficit. The 930M, by contrast, sits near the GeForce GT 645M (0.5% behind) and Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (0.7% ahead of the 930M).

Geekbench OpenCL tells a similar story, though the margin is slightly less extreme. The Quadro M3000M scores 16,646, while the 930M manages 5,046 — a 229.9% difference. Even the slower of the two M3000M results still more than triples the faster of the 930M's scores. The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy: the Quadro M3000M averages 4,621 across all its benchmark runs, while the 930M averages 4,388. That 5.3% gap in aggregate performance is modest compared to the head-to-head deltas, which suggests the 930M's limited benchmark set (only two tests) may not fully capture its weaknesses in older DirectX workloads.

The percentile rankings are surprisingly close — the M3000M sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, the 930M at the 26th — but this reflects the fact that both are end-of-life mobile parts from 2015, not that they perform alike. When the same workload runs on both, the Quadro's lead is massive and consistent.

# Architecture Differences

The two chips share a common design philosophy but diverge dramatically in scale and implementation. Both use TSMC's 28 nm process node, and both are built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture — the Quadro M3000M specifically on Maxwell 2.0, while the 930M uses the original Maxwell. The transistor density is nearly identical: 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter for the M3000M versus 13.2 million for the 930M. That is where the similarities end.

The Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip, a large die measuring 398 mm² with 5,200 million transistors. The 930M uses the GM108S, a much smaller 77 mm² die with just 1,020 million transistors. That is a 5.1x difference in transistor count and a 5.2x difference in die area. The M3000M is fundamentally a bigger, more capable processor.

Memory configurations reinforce the gap. The Quadro packs 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The 930M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 12.80 GB/s. That is a 12.5x bandwidth advantage for the M3000M — a figure that explains much of the compute benchmark dominance. The M3000M's memory clock runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the 930M's memory runs at 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective).

Compute resources tell the same story. The M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The 930M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 4.392 GPixel/s for the 930M — a 6.7x difference. Texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 13.18 GTexel/s, a 4.5x gap. FP32 throughput is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 421.6 GFLOPS, meaning the M3000M has roughly 4.5x the raw floating-point performance.

Clock speeds actually favor the smaller chip in one narrow sense: the 930M's base and boost are both locked at 549 MHz, while the M3000M runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. The Quadro runs faster despite having far more silicon to feed, evidence of its more robust power delivery. The M3000M carries a 75 W TDP versus 33 W for the 930M — the price of that performance envelope.

Bus interface also differs: the M3000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the 930M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. DirectX support is nominally 12 for both, but the M3000M supports 12_1 while the 930M only reaches 11_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

# Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins everywhere the data measures. In Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, it dominates outright. The M3000M's average benchmark score of 4,621 places it just 0.1% above the GeForce GTX 970M, a well-regarded gaming laptop part of its era. That puts the Quadro in a performance class that the 930M cannot approach — the 930M's closest rival is the GeForce GT 645M, a much older and slower part.

For compute workloads — OpenCL and Vulkan compute — the M3000M is the clear choice. Its 229.9% and 347% leads in those tests translate to real-world advantages in GPU-accelerated rendering, video encoding, scientific simulations, and any workload that leverages the compute engine. The memory bandwidth advantage alone (160.4 GB/s versus 12.80 GB/s) makes the M3000M suitable for large datasets and texture-heavy applications, while the 930M would bottleneck severely.

The 930M's only advantage is power consumption. At 33 W TDP, it draws less than half the power of the M3000M's 75 W. That makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal constraints take priority over performance. The 930M is also physically an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor, whereas the M3000M uses an MXM module — a swappable, upgradeable card format found in larger workstations.

Neither chip supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those features. Both are end-of-life products, with the M3000M released in August 2015 and the 930M in March 2015. The M3000M's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and its successor the Quadro Pascal-M; the 930M follows the GeForce 800M and precedes GeForce 10 Mobile.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Quadro M3000M is the superior GPU in nearly every measurable way. Its 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 160.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 1,024 shading units place it in a different performance tier entirely. The 347% Vulkan lead and 229.9% OpenCL lead are not marginal improvements — they represent fundamentally different capabilities.

Professionals running compute-heavy applications should choose the M3000M without hesitation. Its average benchmark score of 4,621 puts it within 0.1% of the GeForce GTX 970M, a respected gaming GPU of its generation, and 2.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro W2100 in the 930M's rival set. The 75 W TDP is manageable in a workstation-class laptop, and the MXM module form factor offers upgrade potential.

Buyers considering the 930M should only do so if power efficiency is the absolute priority. At 33 W, it draws 56% less power than the M3000M. Its 2 GB DDR3 memory and 64-bit bus are adequate for basic display output, light 2D work, and very modest 3D acceleration. The 930M's percentile ranking of 26th versus the M3000M's 27th might suggest near-parity, but that is misleading — the 930M only has two benchmark scores in the database, and both are far below the Quadro's comparable results.

The M3000M's DirectX 12_1 support versus the 930M's 11_0 is another meaningful differentiator for modern games and applications. The Quadro also has a 256-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, and twice the VRAM at 4 GB versus 2 GB. In any workload that stresses memory capacity or bandwidth, the M3000M wins by a wide margin.

The verdict is simple: the Quadro M3000M for anyone who needs actual GPU performance, the 930M only for those who need minimal power draw in a basic laptop.

# FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M3000M in OpenCL?

A: The M3000M scores 16,646 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5,046 for the 930M, a 229.9% advantage.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The M3000M scores 16,668 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 3,729 for the 930M, a 347% lead.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The M3000M has 160.4 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The 930M has 12.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 930M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The 930M has a 33 W TDP versus 75 W for the M3000M, so it draws 56% less power.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU?

A: The M3000M's nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 970M, which is 0.1% behind in average score. The 930M's nearest rival is the GeForce GT 645M, which is 0.5% behind.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | NVIDIA GeForce 930M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM204 | GM108S |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Maxwell |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) | GeForce 900M |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 823 MHz | 549 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 924 MHz | 549 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 12.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1,024 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.57 GPixel/s | 4.392 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 59.14 GTexel/s | 13.18 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.892 TFLOPS | 421.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | GeForce 10 Mobile |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 4,621 | 4,388 |

| Percentile (All GPUs) | 27th | 26th |