GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark available for this comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces an exceptionally tight result. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M posts a score of 3740, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M trails by a mere 22 points with a score of 3718. That 0.6% delta is the entire competitive gap between these two GPUs in this test, statistically negligible, but it does hand the win to the GT 635M. The data shows winsA equals 1, winsB equals 0, meaning the GeForce part takes the only direct comparison.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces how close this pairing is. The GT 635M’s nearest competitors include the Quadro 3000M itself, the GeForce GT 740M (scoring 3717, a 0.6% delta), the GeForce 825M (3694, 1.2% behind), and the Intel UHD Graphics 710, which actually outpaces the GT 635M by 1.4% with a score of 3792. Turning to the Quadro 3000M’s rival list, the same cluster appears: the GT 740M is at 3717 with a 0% delta, the GT 635M is 0.6% ahead, the GeForce 825M is 0.6% behind, and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 trails by 1.9% with a score of 3649. Every part in this performance neighborhood sits within a 3% band, which means both GPUs are effectively interchangeable in raw compute throughput.

For the GT 635M, the win is real but razor-thin. The 0.6% advantage over the Quadro 3000M is smaller than the measurement noise one would expect across different driver versions or thermal conditions. However, the benchmark record lists the GT 635M as the winner, and that is the data point that stands. The Quadro 3000M, meanwhile, has the distinction of being the only rival in this group that the GT 635M beats directly, every other nearby part either matches or exceeds the GeForce chip. The AMD Radeon HD 6770, which appears only on the Quadro’s rival list, sits 1.9% behind the Quadro, suggesting the Quadro at least has a clearer margin over that particular competitor.

Neither GPU distinguishes itself in the broader market. Both sit at the 22nd percentile among all GPUs, meaning roughly three-quarters of all graphics processors score higher. That percentile ranking matters more than the 0.6% head-to-head delta, because it places both parts firmly in entry-level territory. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 3740 for the GT 635M and 3718 for the Quadro 3000M are both low enough that no interpretation of the numbers can elevate these into mid-range performers.

Where Each One Wins

The data offers only one benchmark dimension, so the win breakdown is simple: the GeForce GT 635M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the Quadro 3000M wins nothing in the head-to-head record. That does not mean the Quadro is without merits, the specification sheet reveals areas where it should theoretically dominate, even if the benchmark does not capture them. The Quadro 3000M carries 240 shading units against the GT 635M’s 96, a 2.5× advantage in shader count. Its texture rate is 18.00 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GTexel/s for the GT 635M, and its pixel rate is 4.500 GPixel/s versus 1.900 GPixel/s. Those figures suggest the Quadro should win any workload that scales with raw fillrate or parallel shader execution, such as 3D rendering, CAD viewport manipulation, or compute tasks that are not memory-bandwidth limited.

The GT 635M’s win in the OpenCL benchmark, despite being massively outgunned in shader count, points to memory subsystem differences. The GT 635M uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) with a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro uses GDDR5 at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) with a 256-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s, nearly three times the bandwidth. Yet the GT 635M still scores higher. This suggests the OpenCL test is either latency-sensitive in a way that favors the GT 635M’s higher memory clock, or that the Quadro’s driver stack does not extract its theoretical compute potential. The Quadro’s 432.0 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput is 2.37× the GT 635M’s 182.4 GFLOPS, so the benchmark result cannot be explained by compute capacity alone.

The practical takeaway: the GT 635M wins the only measured test, but the Quadro 3000M has structural advantages in shader count, memory bandwidth, and pixel/texture throughput that would likely surface in gaming at higher resolutions or in professional 3D applications. The GT 635M’s win is confined to this specific OpenCL workload, which may not represent the typical usage pattern for either GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scored higher in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M scored 3740, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scored 3718, giving the GT 635M a 0.6% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro 3000M’s memory compared to the GT 635M?

A: The Quadro 3000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, versus the GT 635M’s 28.80 GB/s from DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both the GT 635M and Quadro 3000M support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Neither lists Vulkan support.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip with 1,950 million transistors, while the GT 635M uses the GF108 chip with 585 million transistors, a 3.33× difference.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, compared to the GT 635M’s 96 shading units.

Q: Are both GPUs from the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use a 40 nm process node at TSMC, though the Quadro’s die size is 332 mm² versus 116 mm² for the GT 635M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply in almost every internal specification, even though their benchmark scores nearly match. The GT 635M uses the GF108 chip, while the Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip. Transistor counts differ dramatically: 585 million for the GT 635M versus 1,950 million for the Quadro 3000M. Die size follows suit at 116 mm² versus 332 mm², and transistor density is slightly higher on the Quadro at 5.9M / mm² versus 5.0M / mm².

Memory configurations are entirely different. The GT 635M uses 2 GB of DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro 3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s. Both have the same memory capacity, but the Quadro has double the bus width and nearly triple the bandwidth.

Compute resources favor the Quadro overwhelmingly. The GT 635M has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 1.900 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 7.600 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 182.4 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS.

Power and form factor also differ. The GT 635M has a TDP of 35 W and is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors. The Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W and is an MXM Module with MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, though it also lists no power connectors. Both use PCIe 2.0 x16, but the Quadro’s physical interface is MXM. Release dates are close: the GT 635M launched on 2012-03-21, while the Quadro 3000M launched on 2011-02-21.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture and manufactured at TSMC on a 40 nm process, but they are different chips with different design goals. The GT 635M is part of the GeForce 600M generation and uses the GF108 die, a small, power-efficient part intended for mainstream laptops. The Quadro 3000M belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation and uses the GF104 die, a much larger chip designed for professional mobile workstations.

The GF104 in the Quadro is a substantially more complex design. It packs over three times the transistors (1,950 million versus 585 million) onto a die nearly three times larger (332 mm² versus 116 mm²). That extra silicon goes into the Quadro’s 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the GT 635M’s 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The Quadro’s architecture also supports a 256-bit memory interface, while the GT 635M is limited to 128-bit.

Memory technology differs as well. The Quadro pairs its wider bus with GDDR5, while the GT 635M uses DDR3. This is not just a clock speed difference, GDDR5 is a fundamentally different memory standard designed for higher bandwidth per pin. The Quadro’s 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is 2.78× the GT 635M’s 28.80 GB/s, which should matter substantially in bandwidth-hungry professional workloads like texture-heavy 3D rendering or large data set processing.

Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both lack Vulkan support. They share the same DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 API support. The GT 635M has a predecessor in the GeForce 500M and a successor in the GeForce 700M. The Quadro 3000M’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. Both are end-of-life products.

The TDP gap of 35 W versus 75 W reflects the architectural difference: the GT 635M is built for thin-and-light laptops with integrated graphics, while the Quadro 3000M requires a larger MXM module and more substantial cooling. The GT 635M’s slot width is listed as "IGP," while the Quadro is "MXM Module," indicating different physical integration paths despite both being mobile parts.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a paradox: the GT 635M wins the only head-to-head test, yet the Quadro 3000M is the clearly superior piece of silicon on paper. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 3740 versus 3718 gives the GT 635M a 0.6% victory, but that margin is within the noise of any single benchmark run. The Quadro’s 2.5× shading unit count, 2.78× memory bandwidth, and 2.37× FP32 throughput all point to a GPU that should outperform the GT 635M in most real-world scenarios beyond this one test.

Who should pick which? A user whose primary concern is the exact Geekbench OpenCL metric, or who is running workloads that happen to mirror that specific test, would choose the GT 635M, it is the winner, however narrow. The GT 635M also offers lower power consumption at 35 W versus 75 W, which matters in battery-constrained laptops. Its IGP form factor suggests it can be integrated into slimmer chassis.

The Quadro 3000M, despite losing the head-to-head, is the sensible choice for anyone running professional applications that exploit its massive compute advantage. The 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, combined with 80.00 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth, should translate into better performance in CAD, 3D modeling, and GPU-accelerated compute tasks that the OpenCL benchmark may not fully capture. The Quadro’s 432.0 GFLOPS of FP32 capability is more than double the GT 635M’s, and its 18.00 GTexel/s texture rate is 2.37× higher.

The 22nd percentile ranking for both parts is the sobering reality check. Neither GPU is competitive by modern standards, and both should be considered entry-level or legacy hardware. The GT 635M wins the benchmark war on paper, but the Quadro 3000M wins the specification war by a wide margin. For a buyer choosing between these two used or refurbished mobile GPUs, the data suggests the Quadro 3000M is the better long-term bet for demanding workloads, while the GT 635M offers a marginal benchmark advantage at lower power. The 0.6% delta is real but meaningless in practical terms, the architectural gap of 3.33× in transistors and 2.5× in shading units is the number that should drive the decision.