NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the Kepler architecture, but the benchmark data reveals they target very different priorities. The data shows a single head-to-head comparison in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GeForce GT 755M decisively outperforms the Quadro K3000M, yet the underlying specifications suggest a more nuanced story about their respective roles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M trails with 4241. This represents a deltaPct of -14, meaning the Quadro K3000M is 14% slower than the GT 755M in this compute-oriented workload. The margin is significant enough to establish a clear performance hierarchy in raw throughput, but it is notably this is a single data point rather than a comprehensive suite.

Digging into the broader context, the Quadro K3000M’s average benchmark score of 4241 places it at the 25th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (scoring 4268, a -0.6% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (scoring 4282, a -1% delta), and the AMD FirePro W2100 (scoring 4295, a -1.3% delta). Interestingly, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 4193, which is 1.2% lower than the Quadro K3000M, suggesting the older professional card holds its own against a much newer consumer part in this specific test.

The GeForce GT 755M, meanwhile, averages 4033 across its two benchmark entries (a Geekbench Metal score of 3132 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4934). This puts it at the 24th percentile, just one point below the Quadro K3000M. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4150 (scoring 4013, a 0.5% delta), the Intel HD Graphics 630 (scoring 4075, a -1% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (scoring 3977, a 1.4% delta). The presence of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB in its rival list, scoring 4093 with a -1.5% delta, is notable because it shows the GT 755M is competitive with a modern discrete GPU in this legacy benchmark.

The head-to-head delta of -14% is the star number here. It tells us that in pure OpenCL compute, the GT 755M has a clear advantage, but the question becomes whether that advantage translates to real-world usage given the other specification differences.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GT 755M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 4934 versus 4241. That is a straightforward victory in compute throughput. The data also shows the GT 755M has a higher FP32 rating at 783.4 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro K3000M’s 753.4 GFLOPS, which aligns with the OpenCL result. Its pixel rate is also higher at 8.160 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 32.64 GTexel/s versus 31.39 GTexel/s. These are small but consistent wins for the GT 755M across raw throughput metrics.

The Quadro K3000M, despite losing the compute benchmark, has structural advantages that suggest it may win in other scenarios. It has a larger memory bus width of 256 bit compared to the GT 755M’s 128 bit, which typically benefits memory-intensive workloads. Its bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s versus 86.40 GB/s, a modest but real margin. The Quadro also has more shading units (576 versus 384), more TMUs (48 versus 32), and more ROPs (32 versus 16). These numbers point to a design that can handle geometry and fill-rate heavy tasks more efficiently, even if its raw FP32 throughput is lower.

The GT 755M wins on clock speeds, with a base clock of 980 MHz and boost of 1020 MHz, versus the Quadro K3000M’s fixed 654 MHz (no boost). That clock advantage explains how the GT 755M achieves higher throughput despite having fewer cores. The GT 755M also has a lower TDP of 50 W versus 75 W, which is a significant efficiency win.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934, which is 14% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s 4241.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same memory bandwidth?

A: No. The Quadro K3000M has a 256-bit memory bus providing 89.60 GB/s, while the GT 755M uses a 128-bit bus for 86.40 GB/s.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to competitor GPUs?

A: The Quadro K3000M averages 4241, sitting between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193). The GT 755M averages 4033, which is close to the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013) and the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, while the GT 755M has 384.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each?

A: The Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the GT 755M has a TDP of 50 W.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are based on the Kepler architecture, but they use different chips: the Quadro K3000M uses GK104, and the GT 755M uses GK107.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the GT 755M uses the GK107 chip with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. This leads to a transistor density of 12.0M / mm² for the Quadro versus 10.8M / mm² for the GT.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator: the Quadro runs at a fixed 654 MHz base and boost, while the GT 755M has a 980 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost. Memory clocks are also different, with the Quadro at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) and the GT at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). The memory bus width is 256-bit for the Quadro versus 128-bit for the GT, resulting in bandwidths of 89.60 GB/s and 86.40 GB/s, respectively.

The shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all favor the Quadro: 576 versus 384 shading units, 48 versus 32 TMUs, and 32 versus 16 ROPs. However, the pixel rate and texture rate are slightly higher on the GT 755M (8.160 GPixel/s and 32.64 GTexel/s) compared to the Quadro (7.848 GPixel/s and 31.39 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is 783.4 GFLOPS for the GT versus 753.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro.

The TDP is a significant difference: 75 W for the Quadro versus 50 W for the GT. The bus interface also differs, with the Quadro using MXM-B (3.0) and the GT using PCIe 3.0 x16. The release dates are about a year apart, with the Quadro launching on 2012-05-31 and the GT on 2013-06-24.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the Kepler architecture, but they represent different design philosophies within that generation. The Quadro K3000M is part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) series, while the GT 755M belongs to the GeForce 700M series. The Quadro uses the larger GK104 chip, which has more transistors (3,540 million) and a larger die (294 mm²), indicating a more complex design with more functional units. The GT 755M uses the smaller GK107 chip with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die.

Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor density differs slightly (12.0M / mm² for the Quadro versus 10.8M / mm² for the GT), suggesting the Quadro packs more logic into the same area. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores, which is expected for Kepler-generation parts. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, so API compatibility is identical.

The memory configuration differs in bus width, which is a fundamental architectural choice. The Quadro’s 256-bit bus is designed for higher bandwidth efficiency, while the GT’s 128-bit bus is a cost and power optimization. The Quadro’s predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M, and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The GT’s predecessor is the GeForce 600M, and its successor is the GeForce 800M. Both are end-of-life products, but the Quadro’s professional lineage (as part of the Quadro series) versus the GT’s consumer focus (GeForce series) is the defining difference.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins the only head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 14% margin. Its higher clock speeds (980 MHz base, 1020 MHz boost versus 654 MHz fixed) and higher FP32 rating (783.4 GFLOPS versus 753.4 GFLOPS) give it a genuine compute advantage. It also does this at a lower TDP of 50 W versus 75 W, making it a more efficient choice for sustained workloads.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M should not be dismissed. Its larger memory bus (256-bit versus 128-bit) and higher bandwidth (89.60 GB/s versus 86.40 GB/s) suggest it would perform better in memory-bound scenarios, despite its lower raw throughput. The Quadro also has significantly more shading units (576 versus 384), TMUs (48 versus 32), and ROPs (32 versus 16), which could translate to better performance in geometry-heavy or fill-rate-limited applications. Its 25th percentile ranking versus the GT’s 24th percentile is statistically negligible, but the Quadro’s nearest rivals include the GTX 1050 Ti, which it slightly beats, indicating respectable staying power.

From the data, the GT 755M is the pick for users prioritizing raw compute and efficiency, especially in OpenCL workloads. The Quadro K3000M is the pick for users who need the wider memory bus and higher core counts, likely in professional visualization contexts where those features matter more than raw GFLOPS. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a use-case-driven choice. The GT 755M is the better all-rounder in this comparison, but the Quadro has specific strengths that could be decisive in the right application.