NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data contains only one shared workload, Geekbench OpenCL, and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins it decisively. That single result defines the use-case split entirely: the Quadro M3000M is the compute-oriented part, while the GeForce GT 755M has no recorded shared test where it takes the lead. In the database, the Quadro M3000M holds 1 win out of 1 head-to-head comparison, and the GT 755M holds 0.

Looking at the wider benchmark suite, the Quadro M3000M shows a much broader set of recorded scores. It lists nine separate benchmark entries covering DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus G2D, G3D, GPU compute, OpenCL, and Vulkan. The GT 755M, by contrast, only has two recorded entries: Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL. This means the Quadro M3000M is positioned as a part that was tested across a full spectrum of legacy and modern APIs, while the GT 755M appears in the database primarily for its OpenCL and Metal performance.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The Quadro M3000M sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GT 755M sits at the 24th. Both are near the lower-middle range, but the M3000M is slightly higher. Its average benchmark score is 4621 versus 4033 for the GT 755M, a difference that reflects the M3000M's stronger compute and graphics throughput.

In terms of use cases, the data suggests the Quadro M3000M is better suited to workloads that demand higher memory bandwidth, more shading units, and greater texture throughput. The GT 755M, with its smaller memory bus and fewer execution resources, is a lighter-weight part that would be adequate for less demanding mobile graphics tasks. The recorded benchmarks for the GT 755M include Metal, which the M3000M does not list, so that is a niche where the older card has some recorded presence, but the single shared OpenCL test shows a massive gap in raw compute performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA generations and use different architectures. The Quadro M3000M is built on Maxwell 2.0 with the GM204 chip, while the GT 755M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts and die sizes diverge sharply.

The GM204 die in the M3000M contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The GK107 die in the GT 755M is much smaller: 1,270 million transistors on 118 mm², or 10.8 million per square millimeter. This is a fundamental difference in silicon budget. The M3000M has roughly four times the transistor count and more than three times the die area.

The execution resources differ accordingly. The M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every category, the M3000M has at least double the resources of the GT 755M, and in shading units it has more than 2.5 times as many.

Memory architecture is also different. The M3000M uses a 256-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GT 755M uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5. Effective memory speed is 5 Gbps on the M3000M versus 5.4 Gbps on the GT 755M, but the wider bus gives the M3000M a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s compared to 86.40 GB/s for the GT 755M. The smaller part has a slightly faster per-pin data rate, but the wider interface wins decisively in total bandwidth.

Clocks also differ. The M3000M has a base clock of 823 MHz and a boost of 924 MHz. The GT 755M runs higher: 980 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the M3000M achieves much higher fill rates and compute throughput because of its larger execution engine. Pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s on the M3000M versus 8.160 GPixel/s on the GT 755M. Texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 32.64 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 783.4 GFLOPS.

Power draw is lower on the GT 755M at 50 W, while the M3000M is rated at 75 W. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors, and both use PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for both.

API support differs slightly. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GT 755M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Maxwell part has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4621, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has an average of 4033. The M3000M also sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the 24th percentile for the GT 755M.

Q: What is the performance difference in the shared OpenCL benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16646, and the GT 755M scores 4934. The M3000M wins by 237.4% in that test.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The GT 755M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth. The M3000M has nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, while the GeForce GT 755M has 384. The M3000M has more than 2.5 times as many.

Q: Are the power requirements different?

A: Yes. The Quadro M3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the GT 755M has a TDP of 50 W. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The M3000M uses a GM204 chip with 5,200 million transistors, while the GT 755M uses a GK107 chip with 1,270 million transistors. The M3000M has over four times the transistor count.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Chip: GM204 (M3000M) versus GK107 (GT 755M)
• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 versus Kepler
• Generation: Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) versus GeForce 700M
• Transistors: 5,200 million versus 1,270 million
• Die size: 398 mm² versus 118 mm²
• Transistor density: 13.1M / mm² versus 10.8M / mm²
• Base clock: 823 MHz versus 980 MHz
• Boost clock: 924 MHz versus 1020 MHz
• Memory clock: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 2 GB
• Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 160.4 GB/s versus 86.40 GB/s
• Shading units: 1024 versus 384
• TMUs: 64 versus 32
• ROPs: 32 versus 16
• Pixel rate: 29.57 GPixel/s versus 8.160 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 59.14 GTexel/s versus 32.64 GTexel/s
• FP32 compute: 1.892 TFLOPS versus 783.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W versus 50 W
• DirectX version: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan version: 1.4 versus 1.2.175
• Release date: 2015-08-17 versus 2013-06-24
• Predecessor: Quadro Kepler-M versus GeForce 600M
• Successor: Quadro Pascal-M versus GeForce 800M

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison in the database contains only one test: Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro M3000M scores 16646, and the GT 755M scores 4934. The delta is 237.4%, meaning the M3000M is more than three times faster in this compute workload. This is the largest single win recorded between the two parts.

The magnitude of that gap is explainable by the silicon differences. The M3000M has 1,024 shading units versus 384, a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, and FP32 throughput of 1.892 TFLOPS versus 783.4 GFLOPS. The OpenCL test exercises raw compute and memory bandwidth, both of which strongly favor the M3000M.

The GT 755M has no recorded win in any shared benchmark. Its two benchmark entries, Geekbench Metal (3132) and Geekbench OpenCL (4934), only appear in its own benchmark list. The M3000M does not have a Metal score recorded, so no comparison exists there.

Looking at the M3000M's other recorded benchmarks, its Passmark G3D score is 5543, and its Passmark GPU compute score is 2139. Its DirectX scores range from 23 (DirectX 12) to 98 (DirectX 9). The GT 755M has no Passmark scores recorded at all, so no direct comparisons can be made in those tests.

The average benchmark scores tell the broader story. The M3000M averages 4621, and its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4628, a delta of -0.1%. The GT 755M averages 4033, and its nearest rival is the AMD FirePro M4150 at 4013, a delta of 0.5%. The M3000M sits slightly below its nearest rival, while the GT 755M sits slightly above its nearest rival, but the absolute difference between the two parts is 588 points in favor of the M3000M.

The percentile rankings are close: 27th for the M3000M and 24th for the GT 755M. Both are low in the overall distribution, but the M3000M is measurably higher. The single shared benchmark confirms that the M3000M is the stronger part, and the architecture data supports that conclusion with a much larger execution engine, wider memory path, and newer feature set.