GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 scores 4545, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718. That is a 22.2% advantage for the GTX 650, a substantial margin that places the desktop card firmly in a different performance tier. The Quadro 3000M trails by roughly a fifth, which is notable given that both cards target the same average performance percentile.

The GTX 650's broader benchmark profile tells a fuller story. Beyond the OpenCL result, it achieves 2400 in Geekbench Metal and 4524 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro 3000M has no Metal or Vulkan scores recorded, so those results cannot be compared directly. However, the OpenCL gap of 22.2% is consistent with the underlying hardware differences: the GTX 650's shading units outnumber the Quadro 3000M's by 384 to 240, and its FP32 throughput of 812.5 GFLOPS nearly doubles the Quadro's 432.0 GFLOPS. That raw compute advantage explains why the GTX 650 wins every head-to-head matchup where both cards have data.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the GTX 650 averages 3823 across all its tests, while the Quadro 3000M averages 3718. The difference is only 105 points, or about 2.8%, but that narrow margin hides the fact that the GTX 650's average is pulled down by its Metal score of 2400, a test the Quadro never took. In the single comparable workload, the GTX 650 is clearly faster.

Both cards sit at the 22nd percentile among all GPUs, meaning they are statistically equivalent in overall ranking despite the GTX 650's superior compute metrics. This suggests the Quadro 3000M's strengths lie elsewhere, likely in its memory configuration or driver optimizations for professional workloads, though the benchmark data alone cannot confirm that.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is generational. The GTX 650 uses the GK106 chip built on Kepler architecture, manufactured at 28 nm by TSMC. The Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip on Fermi architecture, manufactured at 40 nm. That process difference is significant: the GTX 650 packs 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 3000M, by contrast, contains 1,950 million transistors spread across a much larger 332 mm² die, yielding only 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 650 is nearly twice as dense, a direct consequence of the newer 28 nm process.

The memory subsystems are curiously balanced in bandwidth but divergent in structure. Both cards deliver exactly 80.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth, yet they get there differently. The GTX 650 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro 3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The Quadro's wider bus compensates for its slower clock speed, resulting in identical bandwidth. However, the GTX 650's faster memory clock suggests lower latency potential, while the Quadro's double capacity points toward larger dataset handling.

The compute architectures differ sharply. The GTX 650 fields 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 3000M counters with 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This is a fascinating split: the GTX 650 has 60% more shaders but half the TMUs and ROPs of the Quadro. The GTX 650's pixel rate of 8.464 GPixel/s dwarfs the Quadro's 4.500 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 33.86 GTexel/s nearly doubles the Quadro's 18.00 GTexel/s. Yet the Quadro's 32 ROPs versus the GTX 650's 16 ROPs suggests the professional card was designed for fill-rate-heavy tasks that the benchmark suite does not capture.

Feature support tells another story. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 650 additionally supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 3000M lists no Vulkan support. The GTX 650 also offers modern display outputs, 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the Quadro 3000M's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile workstation heritage. Power requirements differ as well: the GTX 650 draws 65 W with a 250 W suggested PSU and a single 6-pin connector, while the Quadro 3000M draws 75 W with no power connectors, using an MXM module form factor.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The GTX 650 is significantly faster, scoring 4545 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 3718 for the Quadro 3000M, a 22.2% advantage. Its FP32 throughput of 812.5 GFLOPS more than doubles the Quadro's 432.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Do these cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GTX 650 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed. The GTX 650 also has Geekbench Metal and Vulkan scores, which the Quadro lacks entirely.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: Both have 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, but the GTX 650 uses 1024 MB on a 128-bit bus at 1250 MHz, while the Quadro 3000M uses 2 GB on a 256-bit bus at 625 MHz. The Quadro has double the capacity and bus width, but half the memory clock speed.

Q: Which card has better pixel and texture throughput?

A: The GTX 650 wins both. Its pixel rate is 8.464 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s for the Quadro, and its texture rate is 33.86 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s, a margin of roughly 88% in both metrics.

Q: Are these cards comparable in overall standing?

A: Yes, both sit at the 22nd percentile among all GPUs. Their average benchmark scores are close, 3823 for the GTX 650 and 3718 for the Quadro 3000M, but the GTX 650's average includes additional tests the Quadro never took.

Q: What physical or power differences exist?

A: The GTX 650 is a single-slot desktop card requiring a 6-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU, drawing 65 W. The Quadro 3000M is an MXM module drawing 75 W with no power connectors, designed for portable devices.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 | NVIDIA Quadro 3000M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GK106 | GF104 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Generation | GeForce 600 | Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Shading Units | 384 | 240 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.464 GPixel/s | 4.500 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 33.86 GTexel/s | 18.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 812.5 GFLOPS | 432.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 65 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | None listed |

| Release Date | 2013-11-26 | 2011-02-21 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 500 | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | GeForce 700 | Quadro Kepler-M |

# Where Each One Wins

The GTX 650 wins in every measured compute benchmark. Its OpenCL score of 4545 beats the Quadro's 3718 by 22.2%. It also holds the edge in pixel rate (8.464 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s), texture rate (33.86 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (812.5 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS). For any workload that stresses shader compute, general-purpose GPU tasks, physics simulations, or rendering that relies on pixel and texture throughput, the GTX 650 is the clear choice.

The Quadro 3000M's advantages are structural rather than benchmark-proven. Its 2 GB memory capacity doubles the GTX 650's 1024 MB, which matters for datasets that exceed the GTX 650's frame buffer. Its 256-bit memory bus and 32 ROPs suggest stronger fill-rate capabilities for large-pixel workloads, even though its pixel rate is lower due to slower clocks. The Quadro also draws only 10 W more (75 W versus 65 W) while offering double the memory capacity, making it potentially better suited for memory-bound tasks despite its compute deficit.

The GTX 650's modern feature set gives it an edge in API compatibility. Vulkan 1.2.175 support, DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and PCIe 3.0 x16 connectivity make it more adaptable to contemporary systems. The Quadro's MXM form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs restrict it to specific laptop or workstation chassis.

For gaming and general desktop use, the GTX 650's superior compute and modern API support make it the only sensible pick. For professional mobile workstation deployments where 2 GB VRAM is essential and Vulkan is not a requirement, the Quadro 3000M could justify its existence, but the benchmark data shows it loses decisively in raw performance.

# The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M in every comparable metric. Its 22.2% OpenCL advantage, roughly double the FP32 throughput, and nearly double the pixel and texture rates establish it as the faster GPU by a wide margin. The GTX 650's Kepler architecture on 28 nm delivers far better transistor density and efficiency than the Quadro's 40 nm Fermi design.

Who should pick the GTX 650? Anyone seeking higher compute performance, modern API support (Vulkan 1.2.175), and standard desktop connectivity. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and lower TDP of 65 W make it a flexible option for desktop builds. The additional benchmark coverage, Metal at 2400 and Vulkan at 4524, confirms its versatility across modern compute frameworks.

Who should pick the Quadro 3000M? Only those who specifically need 2 GB of VRAM in a mobile MXM form factor with no power connectors. The Quadro's 256-bit bus and 32 ROPs hint at untapped potential in fill-rate-heavy professional applications, but no benchmark data confirms this advantage. Its lack of Vulkan support and lower compute scores make it a difficult recommendation for any workload that can run on the GTX 650.

The percentile rankings tell a subtle story: both cards sit at the 22nd percentile, and the Quadro's nearest rivals (GeForce GT 740M, GeForce GT 635M, GeForce 825M) all score within 0.6% of it. The GTX 650's nearest rivals (GeForce MX110, Intel UHD Graphics 710, Radeon R5 Graphics, Quadro 2000) are similarly close. These are entry-level performers, but the GTX 650 is the entry-level performer with meaningfully better compute.

In short, the GTX 650 wins on every measured front. The Quadro's only claims to relevance are its double VRAM capacity and mobile form factor, neither of which appears in a benchmark victory. Choose the GTX 650 for performance; choose the Quadro 3000M only if the MXM module and 2 GB frame buffer are non-negotiable requirements.