GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are both end-of-life mobile and desktop graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they represent two very different architectural eras and market intents. The data shows that the GT 640, built on the newer Kepler architecture, edges out the older Fermi-based Quadro 3000M in the only direct benchmark comparison available, yet the Quadro 3000M holds its own in overall percentile ranking. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and practical implications of each GPU based strictly on the provided specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark between the two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are remarkably close. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 scores 3736, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718. This gives the GT 640 a narrow victory with a delta of just 0.5%. This is a statistical tie in practical terms, but it reveals a significant story: a desktop-oriented consumer GPU from 2012 barely outperforms a professional mobile GPU from 2011 in a compute workload. The GT 640’s Kepler architecture, with its 384 shading units, delivers higher raw FP32 throughput at 692.7 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro 3000M’s 432.0 GFLOPS, yet the margin in the actual test is minimal. This suggests that the Quadro 3000M’s GDDR5 memory and wider 256-bit bus, which provide 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus the GT 640’s 28.51 GB/s, help compensate for its older compute architecture. In the overall benchmark landscape, the Quadro 3000M actually holds a higher percentile rank at 22 versus the GT 640’s 20, despite having fewer wins in direct comparison. The average benchmark scores tell a different story: the Quadro 3000M averages 3718 across its tests, while the GT 640 averages 3210 when including its Vulkan and Metal scores. The GT 640’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 3809 and Metal score of 2086 show that its newer architecture supports a broader range of modern APIs, but its OpenCL performance is essentially on par with the older card.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 640 wins in raw compute throughput and modern API support. With a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3809, it demonstrates capability in modern graphics workloads that the Quadro 3000M cannot match, as the Quadro lacks Vulkan support entirely. The GT 640’s FP32 performance of 692.7 GFLOPS is 60% higher than the Quadro 3000M’s 432.0 GFLOPS, indicating a clear advantage in compute-heavy tasks that utilize shader cores effectively. The GT 640 also has a higher pixel rate at 7.216 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate at 28.86 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s, making it faster in fill-rate-limited scenarios. On the other hand, the Quadro 3000M wins in memory bandwidth and efficiency. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is nearly three times that of the GT 640, and it uses GDDR5 memory versus the GT 640’s DDR3. This makes the Quadro 3000M superior in memory-bound workloads, such as large texture fetch operations or high-resolution frame buffers. The Quadro 3000M also has a larger die (332 mm²) with 1,950 million transistors, which, while less dense, provides more physical resources for memory management. The Quadro 3000M’s 32 ROPs double the GT 640’s 16, giving it an advantage in raw pixel output capability per clock, though its lower clock speeds (4.500 GPixel/s vs 7.216 GPixel/s) negate that advantage in practice. For professional applications that rely on certified drivers and OpenGL 4.6 support, both cards are equal, but the Quadro 3000M’s MXM form factor makes it a drop-in upgrade for specific mobile workstations, which is a distinct advantage where the GT 640 cannot be installed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has a higher average benchmark score of 3718, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640’s average of 3210. This difference is driven by the GT 640’s lower Geekbench Metal score of 2086, which drags down its average.

Q: Is the GT 640 faster than the Quadro 3000M in OpenCL?

A: Yes, but only marginally. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GT 640 scores 3736 versus the Quadro 3000M’s 3718, a delta of 0.5%. This is within the margin of error and effectively a tie.

Q: Does the Quadro 3000M support Vulkan?

A: No. The Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan API support listed, while the GT 640 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. This gives the GT 640 a significant advantage in modern cross-platform graphics APIs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a memory bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s, which is 180% higher than the GT 640’s 28.51 GB/s. The Quadro uses a 256-bit GDDR5 interface, while the GT 640 uses a 128-bit DDR3 interface.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GT 640 has 384 shading units, while the Quadro 3000M has 240. This gives the GT 640 a theoretical peak FP32 compute advantage of 692.7 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each GPU?

A: The GT 640’s nearest rival is the Intel Arc Pro B60 with an average score of 3182 and a delta of 0.9%, along with the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 at 3163. The Quadro 3000M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M with an average score of 3717 and a delta of 0%.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal fundamental differences in design philosophy. The GT 640 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 10.8M / mm². The Quadro 3000M uses a 40 nm process with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a lower density of 5.9M / mm². The GT 640 has more shading units (384 vs 240) but fewer TMUs (32 vs 40) and ROPs (16 vs 32). Memory configurations differ significantly: the GT 640 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro 3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The GT 640’s memory clock is 891 MHz (1782 Mbps effective) versus the Quadro’s 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). Power consumption is close, with the GT 640 rated at 65 W and the Quadro at 75 W, but the GT 640 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Quadro 3000M is an MXM Module with no suggested PSU listed. The GT 640 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, whereas the Quadro 3000M’s display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." The GT 640 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro does not list Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The GT 640 is based on the GK107 chip under the Kepler architecture, released in the GeForce 600 generation. The Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip under the Fermi architecture, part of the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation. Kepler was designed for higher efficiency and lower power per transistor, which is evident in the GT 640’s higher transistor density (10.8M / mm²) and lower TDP (65 W) despite having more shading units. Fermi, being an older design, uses more power and die area for fewer shaders, but its 40 TMUs and 32 ROPs suggest a different balance toward texturing and rasterization. The GT 640 has no RT or tensor cores, and neither does the Quadro. The GT 640’s memory type is DDR3, which is slower but cheaper, while the Quadro uses GDDR5, which provides the high bandwidth necessary for professional workloads. The GT 640’s FP16 performance is not listed, but its FP32 is 692.7 GFLOPS; the Quadro’s FP32 is 432.0 GFLOPS. The GT 640 has a larger bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16) compared to the Quadro’s MXM-B (3.0), reflecting their different intended platforms. The GT 640 also has a longer physical length of 145 mm (5.7 inches), while the Quadro’s dimensions are not specified, being a mobile module. The GT 640’s release date is 2012-06-04, while the Quadro’s is 2011-02-21, indicating a generational gap. The GT 640’s predecessor is GeForce 500 and successor is GeForce 700; the Quadro’s predecessor is Quadro FX Mobile and successor is Quadro Kepler-M.

The Verdict

From a pure benchmark perspective, the GT 640 is the better choice for compute workloads in modern API environments. Its Vulkan support and higher FP32 throughput make it more future-proof, and its 0.5% OpenCL win over the Quadro 3000M, coupled with its 60% higher FP32 potential, indicates that on newer software stacks, the GT 640 will pull ahead. The GT 640 also has a lower TDP (65 W vs 75 W) and a standardized desktop form factor with multiple display outputs, making it easier to deploy in a standard desktop system. However, the Quadro 3000M is not without merit. Its 80.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is a massive advantage for memory-intensive tasks, and its higher percentile ranking (22 vs 20) suggests that in the broader benchmark suite, it performs more consistently. The Quadro’s GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus are superior for professional visualization tasks that stream large datasets, and its MXM form factor makes it the only viable option for upgrading specific laptop workstations. The data shows that the GT 640 wins on architecture, compute density, and modern API support, while the Quadro 3000M wins on memory bandwidth and raw rasterization resources. For a desktop user or a buyer looking for a card that can handle modern compute APIs, the GT 640 is the clear pick. For a professional with a compatible MXM laptop requiring maximum memory bandwidth and OpenGL 4.6 certification, the Quadro 3000M remains a capable, if older, choice. The GT 640 also has a launch MSRP of 99 USD, which is a data point for historical context, but the Quadro 3000M has no listed launch MSRP, making direct cost comparison impossible. Ultimately, the verdict depends on the workload: modern compute and desktop flexibility favor the GT 640, while memory-bound professional tasks and mobile integration favor the Quadro 3000M.