NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins the only head-to-head comparison available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the 940MX scores 4939 against the Quadro K3000M's 4241, a 16.5% advantage. That single win covers the entire comparison, meaning the 940MX takes the performance crown in the only measured category.

However, the use-case split is more nuanced than a single score suggests. The 940MX also has a Geekbench Vulkan result of 4749, which indicates it supports modern graphics APIs for compute workloads. The Quadro K3000M has no Vulkan benchmark recorded in the database, so its capability there is unmeasured. For applications relying on Vulkan compute, the 940MX has demonstrated performance, while the Quadro's lack of a recorded score leaves a gap.

The Quadro K3000M, despite losing the OpenCL test, belongs to the professional Quadro lineup. Its positioning targets workstation validation and stability, which the benchmark data does not capture. The 940MX, as a GeForce mobile part, leans toward consumer laptops and general-purpose use. The database shows the 940MX with a higher average benchmark score of 4844 versus 4241 for the Quadro, and it sits at the 28th percentile among all GPUs compared to the Quadro's 25th percentile.

For raw compute throughput in the measured workload, the 940MX wins outright. For professional graphics features and driver certification, the Quadro's nameplate suggests advantages, but the data cannot confirm those because no such benchmarks exist in the pack.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures, and the specifications reveal distinct design philosophies. The 940MX uses the GM107 chip built on Maxwell architecture, while the Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip built on Kepler. Both are manufactured by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but their transistor counts diverge sharply: the Quadro packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the 940MX has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The transistor density is similar (12.6M per mm² for the 940MX versus 12.0M per mm² for the Quadro), but the Quadro's larger die indicates a more complex, higher-power design.

Clock behavior also differs. The 940MX runs at a base clock of 795 MHz with a boost up to 861 MHz, while the Quadro K3000M operates at a fixed 654 MHz with no boost. The Maxwell part uses dynamic clocking to increase performance under load, whereas the Kepler part stays constant. Memory clocks tell a similar story: the 940MX runs its GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro runs at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). Yet the Quadro compensates with a 256-bit memory bus versus the 940MX's 64-bit bus, resulting in 89.60 GB/s bandwidth for the Quadro versus 40.10 GB/s for the 940MX.

The shading resources favor the Quadro on paper: 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs versus the 940MX's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro also has higher pixel rate (7.848 GPixel/s vs. 6.888 GPixel/s) and texture rate (31.39 GTexel/s vs. 27.55 GTexel/s). However, the 940MX achieves higher FP32 compute at 881.7 GFLOPS versus 753.4 GFLOPS, thanks to its higher clocks. Neither chip has ray tracing or tensor cores.

The power envelope separates them fundamentally. The 940MX draws 23 W, while the Quadro K3000M draws 75 W. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors, but the 940MX's lower TDP makes it far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops, while the Quadro's higher power suggests a bulkier chassis. The 940MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0). Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 940MX lists Vulkan 1.4 while the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.2.175.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 4939 versus the Quadro K3000M's 4241, a 16.5% lead. The 940MX also has a Vulkan score of 4749, while the Quadro has no recorded Vulkan result.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro K3000M has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 89.60 GB/s, thanks to a 256-bit bus, versus the 940MX's 40.10 GB/s on a 64-bit bus. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the Quadro runs at a lower memory clock of 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) compared to 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the 940MX.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The 940MX has a 23 W TDP, while the Quadro K3000M has a 75 W TDP. The 940MX achieves higher FP32 compute (881.7 GFLOPS) at one-third the power draw, making it dramatically more efficient per watt.

Q: Are they from the same architecture generation?

A: No. The 940MX uses Maxwell architecture (chip GM107), while the Quadro K3000M uses Kepler architecture (chip GK104). Both are on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the Quadro has a much larger die (294 mm² vs. 148 mm²) and more transistors (3,540 million vs. 1,870 million).

Q: What is the production status of these GPUs?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The 940MX was released on 2016-06-27, while the Quadro K3000M was released on 2012-05-31. The 940MX's predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M.

Q: How do the shading resources compare?

A: The Quadro K3000M has more shading units (576 vs. 512), more TMUs (48 vs. 32), and more ROPs (32 vs. 8). However, the 940MX still wins in FP32 throughput due to its higher clock speeds.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 940MX | NVIDIA Quadro K3000M |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |

| Chip | GM107 | GK104 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Base Clock | 795 MHz | 654 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 861 MHz | 654 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 89.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 576 |

| TMUs | 32 | 48 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.888 GPixel/s | 7.848 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 27.55 GTexel/s | 31.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 881.7 GFLOPS | 753.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 23 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2016-06-27 | 2012-05-31 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it decisively favors the 940MX. The 940MX scores 4939, while the Quadro K3000M scores 4241, yielding a 16.5% delta. This is not a marginal victory; it is a substantial margin that places the 940MX in a different performance tier for this workload.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for both scores. The 940MX's average score of 4844 sits close to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855, -0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867, -0.5% delta). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, -1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791, 1.1% delta, which is oddly lower in this specific test). The 940MX's percentile of 28 means it outperforms roughly a quarter of all GPUs in the database.

The Quadro K3000M's average score of 4241 places it near the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, -0.6% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, -1% delta). It slightly trails the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, -1.3% delta) and leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, 1.2% delta). Its 25th percentile puts it in the lower quarter of the database.

The 940MX also has a recorded Vulkan score of 4749, which suggests its compute capabilities extend beyond OpenCL. The Quadro has no Vulkan benchmark in the database, so no direct comparison is possible. Given the 16.5% OpenCL deficit, the Vulkan gap is likely similar, but the absence of data means this remains an open question.

The wins tally confirms the direction: the 940MX has 1 win and the Quadro has 0 wins in head-to-head benchmarks. The data does not support any category where the Quadro outperforms the 940MX in measured performance.

The Verdict

The database's measured results point to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is the faster GPU in compute performance. Its 16.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, higher FP32 throughput (881.7 GFLOPS vs. 753.4 GFLOPS), and lower power draw (23 W vs. 75 W) make it the superior choice for any workload captured by these benchmarks. The 940MX also benefits from a later release date (2016 versus 2012), which explains its architectural advantages in clock speeds and API support.

For users prioritizing raw compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the 940MX is clearly the pick. Its 28th percentile ranking versus the Quadro's 25th, combined with the 16.5% head-to-head margin, leaves little ambiguity.

However, the Quadro K3000M is not without rationale. Its larger memory bandwidth (89.60 GB/s vs. 40.10 GB/s) and wider 256-bit bus could benefit memory-bound workloads, though no benchmark in the database isolates that advantage. Its 32 ROPs versus the 940MX's 8 ROPs suggests better fill-rate performance in certain rendering scenarios, and the pixel rate confirms this (7.848 GPixel/s vs. 6.888 GPixel/s). The Quadro's professional branding implies certified drivers and workstation compatibility, but the data cannot verify those claims.

The power difference is stark: the Quadro draws over three times the power of the 940MX (75 W vs. 23 W) while delivering less compute throughput. For mobile devices, the 940MX is the only sensible option. The Quadro's 75 W TDP limits it to larger, heavier laptops, while the 940MX can fit in thinner chassis.

Buyers who need maximum memory bandwidth or fill rate, and who prioritize professional-grade drivers, might still consider the Quadro K3000M. But the measured data shows the 940MX winning the only head-to-head test, and its efficiency advantage is overwhelming. For general compute, the 940MX is the better GPU. For specialized workstation tasks that favor bandwidth and ROPs, the Quadro has theoretical advantages, but those remain unproven in the recorded benchmarks. The data says: pick the 940MX unless a specific workload demands the Quadro's wider memory path or professional feature set.