NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro 3000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M are two end-of-life mobile GPUs from different NVIDIA generations, targeting distinct use cases. In the single available Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the Quadro 3000M scores 3718, while the GT 735M scores 3616, giving the Quadro a 2.8% lead. Both sit in the bottom quartile of all GPUs, with the Quadro at the 22nd percentile and the GT 735M at the 21st percentile. Despite their similar performance tier, they differ substantially in architecture, memory subsystem, and power characteristics — making each suited to different workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 3000M wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, but that single result masks a broader functional split. The Quadro 3000M is a professional mobile workstation part, built for reliability and precision in CAD, scientific visualization, and other compute-heavy professional applications. Its 256-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory deliver far more bandwidth — 80.00 GB/s versus the GT 735M’s 14.40 GB/s — which matters for memory-bandwidth-sensitive professional workloads. The Quadro's 32 ROPs and 40 TMUs also give it a strong fill-rate advantage for pixel-heavy tasks, with a texture rate of 18.00 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 4.500 GPixel/s.

The GeForce GT 735M, meanwhile, is a consumer-oriented part designed for everyday laptop use and light gaming. It draws less than half the power of the Quadro (33 W vs 75 W), making it a better fit for thinner, cooler, and longer-battery-life laptops. It also has more shading units (384 vs 240), which gives it a higher theoretical FP32 throughput of 482.3 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro’s 432.0 GFLOPS. For compute workloads that scale well with shader count rather than memory bandwidth, the GT 735M can be the stronger performer. Its newer Kepler 2.0 architecture also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, a feature the Fermi-based Quadro lacks entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip built on TSMC’s 40 nm process, with 1,950 million transistors packed into a 332 mm² die — a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The GT 735M uses the GK208 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 87 mm² die, achieving a far higher transistor density of 11.7M per mm². The newer 28 nm node allows the GT 735M to deliver comparable performance with dramatically lower power consumption.

The Quadro 3000M belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M generation (x000M series), while the GT 735M is part of the GeForce 700M series. The Quadro’s Fermi architecture is older, supporting DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. The GT 735M’s Kepler 2.0 architecture supports the same DirectX and OpenGL versions, plus Vulkan 1.2.175. Memory configurations differ fundamentally: the Quadro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the GT 735M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. This explains the massive bandwidth gap — 80.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s — and means the Quadro can feed its 240 shading units far more efficiently in bandwidth-hungry scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro 3000M scores 3718 and the GT 735M scores 3616. The Quadro wins by 2.8%, a modest margin that places these two GPUs in the same performance class. For context, the Quadro’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GT 740M (3717, 0% delta), the GeForce GT 635M (3740, -0.6% delta), the GeForce 825M (3694, 0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, 1.9% delta). The GT 735M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1050 (3629, -0.3% delta), the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596, 0.6% delta), the GeForce GT 545 (3594, 0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, -0.9% delta).

Notably, the GT 735M sits only 0.3% behind the GeForce GTX 1050 in this test — a surprising result for a low-power Kepler part. Meanwhile, the Quadro 3000M is effectively tied with the GT 740M (0% delta) and slightly ahead of the GeForce 825M. Both GPUs land within a narrow band around 3600-3700 points, with the Quadro’s 2.8% lead being the largest single margin either card holds over the other. This suggests that in raw OpenCL compute, the two are nearly interchangeable, and any real-world difference would come down to memory bandwidth, driver optimizations, or workload-specific characteristics that this single test does not capture.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip (Fermi architecture) on a 40 nm process, while the GT 735M uses GK208 (Kepler 2.0) on 28 nm. Transistor counts diverge significantly: 1,950 million versus 1,020 million, with die sizes of 332 mm² versus 87 mm². Clock speeds present another difference — the Quadro’s memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the GT 735M’s memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GT 735M has explicit base and boost clocks of 575 MHz and 628 MHz, whereas the Quadro lists no base or boost clock data.

Memory subsystems are starkly different: both have 2 GB, but the Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the GT 735M uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the GT 735M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates favor the GT 735M slightly (5.024 GPixel/s vs 4.500 GPixel/s, and 20.10 GTexel/s vs 18.00 GTexel/s), but the Quadro’s FP32 output is lower (432.0 GFLOPS vs 482.3 GFLOPS). Power consumption differs dramatically: 75 W for the Quadro versus 33 W for the GT 735M. The Quadro uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and MXM module slot, while the GT 735M uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and is an IGP form factor. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the available benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the GeForce GT 735M’s 3616 by 2.8%.

Q: Why does the GT 735M have more shading units but score lower?

A: The GT 735M has 384 shading units versus the Quadro’s 240, and higher FP32 throughput (482.3 GFLOPS vs 432.0 GFLOPS). However, the Quadro’s 256-bit GDDR5 memory provides 80.00 GB/s bandwidth versus just 14.40 GB/s for the GT 735M’s 64-bit DDR3, which can bottleneck shader-heavy workloads.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the GeForce GT 735M supports Vulkan (version 1.2.175). The Quadro 3000M’s Fermi architecture does not list Vulkan support, though both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 3000M is essentially tied with the GeForce GT 740M (0% delta) and slightly behind the GeForce GT 635M (-0.6% delta). The GT 735M is 0.3% behind the GeForce GTX 1050, 0.6% ahead of both the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation and the GeForce GT 545, and 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon HD 6770.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the GeForce GT 735M draws only 33 W. This makes the GT 735M far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops without active cooling concerns.

Q: Which has better texture and pixel fill rates?

A: The GT 735M has a higher pixel rate (5.024 GPixel/s vs 4.500 GPixel/s) and texture rate (20.10 GTexel/s vs 18.00 GTexel/s), despite having fewer TMUs (32 vs 40) and far fewer ROPs (8 vs 32).

The Verdict

The data shows two GPUs that land within 2.8% of each other in OpenCL compute, yet serve completely different purposes. The Quadro 3000M is the pick for professional mobile workstations where memory bandwidth is critical — its 80.00 GB/s GDDR5 throughput and 256-bit bus are unmatched by the GT 735M’s 14.40 GB/s DDR3. The Quadro’s 32 ROPs and 40 TMUs also make it better suited for tasks that stress rasterization and texture filtering, despite its lower raw FP32 output. Its MXM module form factor and 75 W TDP indicate a larger, more capable chassis designed for sustained professional workloads.

The GeForce GT 735M, on the other hand, wins on efficiency and modern features. At 33 W, it consumes less than half the power of the Quadro while delivering 482.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance — 11.6% more than the Quadro. Its Kepler 2.0 architecture brings Vulkan 1.2.175 support, which the Fermi-based Quadro lacks entirely. For everyday consumer tasks, light gaming, or any workload that’s shader-bound rather than bandwidth-bound, the GT 735M is the more practical choice. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and IGP form factor also make it easier to integrate into slim laptops.

Choose the Quadro 3000M if your work involves large datasets, high-resolution textures, or professional applications that benefit from wide memory buses and high ROP counts. Choose the GeForce GT 735M if you need a low-power, modern-featured GPU for general use, and value Vulkan support and longer battery life over memory bandwidth. The benchmark gap is small — 2.8% — but the architectural differences are not. Your workload’s memory access pattern and power budget should dictate the choice.