NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data divides these two mobile GPUs into clearly separate roles. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, a Kepler-based part from the GeForce 700M generation, does not record a single benchmark victory over the Quadro M3000M in the available head-to-head tests. The Quadro M3000M, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture from the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) line, wins both recorded comparisons.

The GTX 760M's strengths are contextual rather than absolute. Its 55 W TDP positions it as a lower-power option, drawing 20 W less than the Quadro M3000M's 75 W figure. For portable implementations where thermal and power budgets are tight, the GTX 760M presents a lighter load. The GTX 760M also carries the GeForce branding, which historically aligns with consumer-oriented workloads such as gaming and general multimedia use, though the database does not include gaming-specific benchmark scores for this part.

The Quadro M3000M, by contrast, dominates in raw compute-oriented metrics. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 16646 versus 5604 represents a 197% advantage, and its Vulkan score of 16668 versus 4868 is even larger at a 242% lead. The Quadro lineup traditionally targets professional applications, and the data here supports that positioning: the M3000M's compute throughput is decisively higher across both API tests. The M3000M also doubles the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB) and doubles the memory bus width (256 bit versus 128 bit), which matters for large datasets and texture-heavy workloads.

In terms of overall standing, the GTX 760M sits at the 31st percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro M3000M sits slightly lower at the 27th percentile. This seeming contradiction, a lower percentile despite winning all head-to-head tests, reflects the different benchmark pools. The GTX 760M's average benchmark score of 5236 is actually higher than the M3000M's average of 4621. The explanation lies in the benchmark suites: the M3000M has nine recorded benchmark entries including several Passmark tests with modest scores, while the GTX 760M only has two Geekbench entries, both relatively strong. The M3000M's Passmark G3D score of 5543 and Passmark DirectX 9 score of 98 show healthy legacy API performance, but its Passmark DirectX 12 score of 23 and Passmark GPU Compute score of 2139 pull the average down.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two NVIDIA processors is substantial, spanning two different design generations and a near doubling of key resources. The GTX 760M uses the GK106S chip built on the Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0, also on TSMC's 28 nm process node. Both share the same transistor density trend upward, the M3000M packing 13.1M transistors per mm² on a 398 mm² die, compared to the GTX 760M's 11.1M per mm² on a 221 mm² die. Total transistor count nearly doubles: 5,200 million on the M3000M versus 2,540 million on the GTX 760M.

The GTX 760M belongs to the GeForce 700M generation, released on 2013-05-29, with the GeForce 600M as its predecessor and the GeForce 800M as its successor. The Quadro M3000M comes from the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation, released on 2015-08-17, with the Quadro Kepler-M as its predecessor and Quadro Pascal-M as its successor. Both are end-of-life production status and use MXM Module slot width with no power connectors, both interface via PCIe 3.0 x16, and both have portable device dependent display outputs.

Core configuration differences are pronounced. Shading units jump from 768 on the GTX 760M to 1024 on the Quadro M3000M, a 33% increase in shader count. Texture mapping units remain constant at 64 for both, but render output units double from 16 to 32 on the M3000M. Neither part has ray tracing cores nor tensor cores. The compute ceilings reflect these changes: FP32 output rises from 1,104.4 GFLOPS on the GTX 760M to 1.892 TFLOPS on the M3000M. Pixel rate nearly triples from 11.50 GPixel/s on the GTX 760M to 29.57 GPixel/s on the M3000M, and texture rate climbs from 46.02 GTexel/s to 59.14 GTexel/s on the M3000M.

Clock speeds favor the newer M3000M in both base and boost states. The GTX 760M runs at 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost, while the Quadro M3000M runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. Memory clocks, however, also favor the M3000M: 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective data rate versus 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective on the GTX 760M. Memory bandwidth reflects both the clock and bus width changes: 160.4 GB/s on the M3000M versus 64.13 GB/s on the GTX 760M. API support also advances between generations: DirectX support moves from 12 (11_0) on the GTX 760M to 12 (12_1) on the M3000M, while OpenGL stays at 4.6 for both and Vulkan moves from 1.2.175 to 1.4.

The die size difference, 221 mm² versus 398 mm², is the most visible physical gap. The M3000M's larger die houses more than twice the transistors while consuming only 20 W more power. This efficiency trend aligns with the Maxwell 2.0 architecture's known direction toward better performance per watt, though the database does not directly measure efficiency ratios.

The GTX 760M's smaller die area and lower power draw suggest it can fit into thinner laptop chassis with less elaborate cooling solution. The Quadro M3000M with its 75 W TDP needs more robust cooling, a trade-off the data supports indirectly through power figures. The MXM Module form factor and lack of power connectors for both mean system integrators must plan power delivery through the MXM connector itself, with no external power input required for either card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head comparisons show a one-sided affair, with the Quadro M3000M sweep with two wins out of two tests. The Geekbench OpenCL test scores the GTX 760M at 5604 against the M3000M's 16646, a delta of -66.3% from the M3000M's perspective. In practical terms, the M3000M delivers roughly three times the OpenCL compute score, a gap that would translate into measurably faster execution in OpenCL-accelerated applications.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even wider margin. The GTX 760M scores 4868, while the Quadro M3000M scores 16668, a delta of -70.8%. The M3000M outperforms the GTX 760M by more than 3.4 times in this API test. Vulkan's lower-level hardware abstraction tends to expose raw GPU capabilities more directly, so this gap suggests the M3000M's additional shading units and doubled ROP count provide substantial real-world throughput advantages.

The GTX 760M's nearest rivals in the database include the GeForce GTX 980M at 5308 average score (1.3% higher), the GeForce 940M at 5284 (0.9% higher), the Quadro 4000M at 5211 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon R7 M260X at 5161 (1.5% lower). This clustering around 5200 average score places the GTX 760M in a tight pack of mid-range mobile parts. The Quadro M3000M's nearest rivals are the GeForce GTX 970M at 4628 (0.1% higher), AMD Radeon R5 M320 at 4657 (0.8% higher), AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4657 (0.8% higher), and AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (1.0% lower). The M3000M's average score of 4621 sits in a similar mid-range cluster, despite its individual benchmark wins.

The contrast between the M3000M's high Geekbench scores and its lower average score reveals the importance of test selection. With a Passmark DirectX 9 score of 98 and Passmark G2D score of 402, the M3000M shows strong legacy API performance. Its Passmark DirectX 11 score of 42 and Passmark DirectX 10 score of 26 demonstrate moderate performance in those APIs, while Passmark DirectX 12 score of 23 and Passmark GPU Compute score of 2139 round out the picture. None of these Passmark results individually approach the Geekbench scores in magnitude, highlighting how different benchmark suites measure different aspects of GPU capability.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The Quadro M3000M scores 16646 versus the GTX 760M's 5604, a difference of 66.3% in favor of the M3000M.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory capacity and bus width?

A: The GTX 760M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro M3000M has 4 GB on a 256-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is 64.13 GB/s for the GTX 760M and 160.4 GB/s for the M3000M.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The GTX 760M has a 55 W TDP, and the Quadro M3000M has a 75 W TDP. Both use MXM Module slot width and require no separate power connectors.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: No. The GTX 760M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which GPU has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Quadro M3000M runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost, while the GTX 760M runs at 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for each?

A: The GTX 760M has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, and the Quadro M3000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process.

The Verdict

The data directs different users toward different cards based on workload priorities. For raw compute performance, the Quadro M3000M is the clear choice. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 16646 crushes the GTX 760M's 5604, and its Vulkan score of 16668 dwarfs 4868. The M3000M doubles memory capacity to 4 GB, doubles bus width to 256 bit, and nearly triples memory bandwidth to 160.4 GB/s. It also offers more shading units (1024 versus 768), double the ROPs (32 versus 16), and higher clock speeds across the board. For professional applications that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the M3000M is overwhelmingly faster.

For users prioritizing lower power consumption, the GTX 760M is the more modest option at 55 W versus 75 W. This 20 W difference could matter in thin-and-light laptop designs where thermal headroom is limited. The GTX 760M's smaller die (221 mm² versus 398 mm²) and lower transistor count (2,540 million versus 5,200 million) suggest a less complex cooling requirement, though the database does not directly measure thermals.

The GTX 760M also carries the GeForce branding, which typically aligns with consumer gaming and multimedia use cases. Its average benchmark score of 5236 exceeds the M3000M's 4621, meaning in the aggregate of all recorded tests, the GTX 760M actually performs slightly better across the full benchmark suite available. However, this aggregate advantage is driven by the M3000M's inclusion of several lower Passmark scores, not by any head-to-head win.

The choice depends on the application domain. For compute-heavy professional workloads, the Quadro M3000M's doubled resources and superior API scores make it the only rational pick. For general consumer use where power draw matters more than maximum compute throughput, the GTX 760M offers a lighter power envelope and a higher aggregate score across all benchmarks. The Quadro M3000M's DirectX 12 (12_1) support also gives it access to more advanced rendering features than the GTX 760M's DirectX 12 (11_0) level, an advantage for modern gaming and professional visualization workloads.

The production status of both parts is end-of-life, meaning neither receives new feature updates. The release dates, 2013-05-29 for the GTX 760M and 2015-08-17 for the M3000M, place the M3000M two years newer, consistent with its architectural advantages. The successor and predecessor chains confirm the generational progression: the GTX 760M follows the GeForce 600M and leads to the GeForce 800M, while the M3000M follows the Quadro Kepler-M and leads to the Quadro Pascal-M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GeForce GTX 760M | Quadro M3000M |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | GK106S | GM204 |

| Generation | GeForce 700M | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 628 MHz | 823 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 719 MHz | 924 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1002 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.13 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 64 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.50 GPixel/s | 29.57 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.02 GTexel/s | 59.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,104.4 GFLOPS | 1.892 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 75 W |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-05-29 | 2015-08-17 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 600M | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | GeForce 800M | Quadro Pascal-M |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 5604 | 16646 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 4868 | 16668 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5236 | 4621 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 31 | 27 |

The table highlights the M3000M's dominance in every compute-related specification except power consumption and aggregate benchmark average. The GTX 760M wins only in lower TDP and higher average benchmark score. Both share the same 28 nm process, TSMC foundry, MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, portable device dependent display outputs, OpenGL 4.6 support, and end-of-life production status. The 20 W TDP difference and the 64.13 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s bandwidth gap are the most operationally significant differences for system designers.