NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a decisive outcome: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the overwhelmingly stronger GPU. In the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 16,646 versus the GTX 560M’s 4,855, a 70.8% difference in favor of the newer card. The GTX 560M does not win a single head-to-head test. Any user needing modern compute performance, higher graphical fidelity, or better API support should select the Quadro M3000M. The GTX 560M is only relevant for legacy systems where its specific MXM-B interface and 75W power profile are required, and even then its performance class is far below the Quadro.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by four generations of NVIDIA architecture. The GTX 560M uses the GF116 chip built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro M3000M, in contrast, uses the GM204 chip on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. This chip contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, achieving a density of 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro’s transistor count is 4.4 times higher, and its density is 2.7 times greater.

The compute configurations differ drastically. The GTX 560M has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is 5.3 times more shaders and double the TMUs. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The GTX 560M’s pixel rate is 6.200 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 24.80 GTexel/s; the Quadro’s pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s. The Quadro delivers 4.8 times the pixel fill rate and 2.4 times the texture fill rate. Floating-point performance tells the same story: the GTX 560M provides 595.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro provides 1.892 TFLOPS, a 3.2-fold advantage.

The API support also diverges. The GTX 560M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and has no Vulkan support listed. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. That extra DirectX feature level and Vulkan availability make the Quadro far more suitable for modern workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one benchmark directly compares both GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 560M scores 4,855. The Quadro M3000M scores 16,646. The delta is -70.8%, meaning the GTX 560M trails the Quadro by roughly three and a half times. This is not a marginal gap; it is a generational chasm. The Quadro’s result is 11,791 points higher, a margin larger than the GTX 560M’s entire score. In practical terms, any OpenCL compute task — from image processing to physics simulations — will complete roughly three times faster on the Quadro.

The Quadro also has additional benchmark data not shared with the GTX 560M. In Passmark tests, it scores 5,543 in G3D, 402 in G2D, 2,139 in GPU compute, and 98 in DirectX 9. Its DirectX 10, 11, and 12 scores are 26, 42, and 23, respectively. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro scores 16,668, nearly identical to its OpenCL score of 16,646. These figures suggest consistent performance across different rendering APIs. The GTX 560M has no comparable Vulkan or Passmark scores in the data, so its performance in those tests is unknown. The absence of a DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level on the GTX 560M would likely limit its Passmark DirectX 12 results, but no numbers are available to confirm.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GF116 vs GM204
• Architecture: Fermi 2.0 vs Maxwell 2.0
• Generation: GeForce 500M vs Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)
• Process Node: 40 nm vs 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,170 million vs 5,200 million
• Die Size: 238 mm² vs 398 mm²
• Transistor Density: 4.9M / mm² vs 13.1M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) vs 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 1536 MB vs 4 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 192 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 60.00 GB/s vs 160.4 GB/s
• Shading Units: 192 vs 1024
• TMUs: 32 vs 64
• ROPs: 24 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 6.200 GPixel/s vs 29.57 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 24.80 GTexel/s vs 59.14 GTexel/s
• FP32: 595.2 GFLOPS vs 1.892 TFLOPS
• Base Clock: none vs 823 MHz
• Boost Clock: none vs 924 MHz
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• DirectX: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan: none vs 1.4
• Release Date: 2011-05-29 vs 2015-08-17
• Predecessor: GeForce 400M vs Quadro Kepler-M
• Successor: GeForce 600M vs Quadro Pascal-M

Both GPUs share the same 75W TDP, MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, portable-device-dependent display outputs, TSMC as foundry, GDDR5 memory type, and OpenGL 4.6 support. Neither has a listed base or boost clock for the GTX 560M, nor does either have a suggested PSU, dimensions, or launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 560M has an average benchmark score of 4,855, while the Quadro M3000M has an average of 4,621. However, the Quadro has multiple benchmark results including a Geekbench OpenCL score of 16,646, while the GTX 560M has only the single OpenCL result. The averages are skewed by the Quadro’s low Passmark DirectX scores (23-98 range), which drag down its mean despite its much higher compute scores.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in percentile ranking?

A: The GTX 560M ranks in the 28th percentile among all GPUs, and the Quadro M3000M ranks in the 27th percentile. Despite the Quadro’s massive compute advantage, both sit at nearly the same percentile, reflecting that the percentile is based on the average of all benchmarks, where the Quadro’s low DirectX Passmark scores pull it down.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU?

A: The GTX 560M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX with an average score of 4,844, just 0.2% behind. The Quadro M3000M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M with an average score of 4,628, only 0.1% ahead. Interestingly, the GTX 560M also sits within 0.9% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which scores 4,901.

Q: Does the Quadro M3000M support more modern APIs?

A: Yes. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 560M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan listing. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro’s higher DirectX feature level and Vulkan support make it compatible with a wider range of modern applications and games.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 2.7 times the GTX 560M’s 60.00 GB/s. The Quadro also has a wider 256-bit bus versus the GTX 560M’s 192-bit bus, and faster effective memory speed of 5 Gbps versus 2.5 Gbps. The Quadro’s memory configuration is superior across every metric.

Q: Are both GPUs the same power draw?

A: Yes, both are rated at 75W TDP. They also share the same MXM Module slot width and have no power connectors. This means a system designed for one could theoretically accommodate the other from a power standpoint, provided the bus interface is compatible, though the GTX 560M uses MXM-B (3.0) while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins in every measurable category for which both GPUs have data. It dominates compute workloads, as evidenced by the Geekbench OpenCL score of 16,646 versus 4,855. It also has superior memory bandwidth (160.4 GB/s vs 60.00 GB/s), double the texture units (64 vs 32), and more than five times the shading units (1,024 vs 192). For any task involving rendering, simulation, or GPU-accelerated compute, the Quadro is the only rational choice.

The GTX 560M’s only statistical edge is its average benchmark score of 4,855 versus the Quadro’s 4,621, but this is misleading. The Quadro’s average is depressed by its Passmark DirectX scores ranging from 23 to 98, while its OpenCL and Vulkan scores exceed 16,600. The GTX 560M has no results in those low-scoring Passmark tests, so its average reflects only its single OpenCL result. In a direct comparison, the Quadro wins the head-to-head benchmark 1-0.

The GTX 560M may be preferable in a legacy system where the MXM-B (3.0) interface is required and the PCIe 3.0 x16 interface of the Quadro is not compatible. It also has a smaller die (238 mm² vs 398 mm²) and fewer transistors (1,170 million vs 5,200 million), which could theoretically make it easier to cool, though both are rated at 75W. However, these are practical compatibility considerations, not performance advantages. The data is unambiguous: the Quadro M3000M is the superior GPU for every benchmarked workload, and the GTX 560M is an older, slower part that should only be considered for retrofitting machines with matching interfaces.