GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but benchmark results show they serve distinctly different performance tiers. The data is decisively in favor of the GeForce GT 755M, which delivers a 32.7% higher average benchmark score than the Quadro 3000M. While the Quadro holds its own in specific legacy scenarios, the GeForce part is the superior compute performer across the board in the available data.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split is clear-cut: the GeForce GT 755M wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it wins it by a substantial margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GT 755M scores 4934 against the Quadro 3000M’s 3718, a 32.7% advantage. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational and architectural leap that shows up plainly in raw compute throughput. The GT 755M also holds a higher overall benchmark percentile at 24 versus the Quadro’s 22, meaning it sits closer to the middle of the GPU performance distribution.

The Quadro 3000M’s wins are less about raw speed and more about specific feature-set relevance. It belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M generation, which targets professional mobile workstations. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GT 740M and GT 635M, with delta percentages of 0% and -0.6% respectively, indicating it trades blows with mid-range consumer parts from its era. However, in the available benchmark data, the Quadro 3000M does not secure a single win against the GT 755M. The GeForce part wins all one head-to-head tests, while the Quadro wins zero.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is fundamental. The GT 755M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Quadro 3000M is a Fermi design using the GF104 chip, built on a larger 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This node difference alone explains much of the efficiency and clock-speed disparity. The GT 755M packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The Quadro 3000M has 1,950 million transistors spread across a 332 mm² die, giving it a much lower density of 5.9M per mm².

The shader configurations differ significantly. The GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the GT 755M has 60% more shading units, while the Quadro has 25% more texture units and double the ROP count. The GT 755M’s higher shader count directly feeds its FP32 throughput of 783.4 GFLOPS, which is 81% higher than the Quadro’s 432.0 GFLOPS. The Quadro compensates with a wider 256-bit memory bus versus the GT 755M’s 128-bit bus, though the GT 755M still achieves higher memory bandwidth at 86.40 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s due to its faster 5.4 Gbps effective memory clock.

Neither GPU supports ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those features. The GT 755M offers Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark result is the most telling data point. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718. The delta percentage is 32.7% in favor of the GT 755M. This is a massive gap that reflects the combined effects of newer architecture, higher clock speeds, and more efficient shader utilization.

To put this in context, the Quadro 3000M’s average benchmark score of 3718 places it directly alongside the GeForce GT 740M (3717, 0% delta) and slightly below the GeForce GT 635M (3740, -0.6% delta). Meanwhile, the GT 755M’s average score of 4033 places it in a different competitive bracket, trading closely with the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013, 0.5% delta) and Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075, -1% delta). The GT 755M is 8.5% faster than the Quadro 3000M on average scores alone, and the gap widens to 32.7% in the specific OpenCL workload where both were tested under identical conditions.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides further context. The Quadro 3000M’s closest competitor is the GeForce GT 740M with a 0% delta, meaning they are statistically tied. The GT 755M’s closest competitor is the FirePro M4150 with a 0.5% delta, also a statistical tie. However, the absolute score difference between the two cards in question is far larger than the differences between either card and its nearest rivals, confirming that the GT 755M occupies a clearly higher performance tier.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond the obvious performance gap. The process node differs: the GT 755M uses 28 nm, while the Quadro 3000M uses 40 nm. Transistor counts are 1,270 million versus 1,950 million, and die size is 118 mm² versus 332 mm². The GT 755M has higher transistor density at 10.8M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The GT 755M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz. The Quadro 3000M has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective. The GT 755M’s memory runs at 1350 MHz with 5.4 Gbps effective, double the Quadro’s effective memory speed.

Memory configuration is similar in capacity but different in width: both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the GT 755M uses a 128-bit bus while the Quadro uses a 256-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the GT 755M achieves higher bandwidth at 86.40 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s. Shading units are 384 versus 240, TMUs are 32 versus 40, and ROPs are 16 versus 32. Pixel rate is 8.160 GPixel/s for the GT 755M versus 4.500 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and texture rate is 32.64 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 783.4 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS.

Power consumption favors the GT 755M at 50 W TDP versus 75 W for the Quadro. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The GT 755M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0). The GT 755M supports Vulkan 1.2.175; the Quadro does not list Vulkan support. Release dates are June 2013 for the GT 755M and February 2011 for the Quadro 3000M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has an average benchmark score of 4033, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has an average score of 3718, making the GT 755M approximately 8.5% faster on average.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head OpenCL test?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GT 755M scores 4934 versus the Quadro 3000M’s 3718, a delta of 32.7% in favor of the GT 755M.

Q: What are the architectural differences between the two chips?

A: The GT 755M uses the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The Quadro 3000M uses Fermi on a 40 nm process with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the GT 755M uses a 128-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 3000M uses a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The GT 755M delivers 783.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 81% higher than the Quadro 3000M’s 432.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The GT 755M has a TDP of 50 W, while the Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W, making the GT 755M more power-efficient despite its higher performance.

The Verdict

The data leaves no room for ambiguity: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the superior GPU in nearly every measurable category. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 32.7%, has a higher average score (4033 versus 3718), and boasts a newer architecture with higher clock speeds and more shading units. Its FP32 throughput of 783.4 GFLOPS crushes the Quadro’s 432.0 GFLOPS, and it does so while consuming 25 W less power. The GT 755M also supports Vulkan, which the Quadro does not, and achieves higher memory bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

The Quadro 3000M’s sole advantages are its 256-bit memory bus, double the ROP count, and a higher TMU count. These features do not translate into benchmark wins in the available data. Its nearest rivals are the GeForce GT 740M and GT 635M, both of which are within 1% of its average score, confirming it sits in the mid-range mobile tier of its era.

For a user prioritizing raw compute performance, modern API support, and power efficiency, the GT 755M is the clear choice. The Quadro 3000M may carry a professional workstation pedigree, but the benchmark results indicate that pedigree does not compensate for its older Fermi architecture and lower throughput. The GT 755M wins this comparison decisively, and the numbers support that conclusion without qualification.