NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a clear hierarchy between these two mobile NVIDIA parts. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins all nine head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M. The GTX 980M achieves an average benchmark score of 5308, placing it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M3000M scores an average of 4621, resting in the 27th percentile. The performance gap is substantial in most tests, with the GTX 980M leading by margins ranging from 6.2% in Vulkan compute to 43.2% in OpenCL compute.

The GTX 980M is the clear choice for users prioritizing raw graphics performance, particularly in DirectX workloads and general compute tasks. The Quadro M3000M, despite its lower scores, carries a 75 W TDP, which is the only power figure recorded in the database for either product. This makes it the more power-conscious option, though the GTX 980M has no recorded TDP in the database to compare against. For buyers who need maximum frame rates and compute throughput, the GTX 980M is the data-backed recommendation. For those who require professional-grade driver validation and lower power draw, the Quadro M3000M remains viable, but the benchmark data shows it sacrifices considerable performance.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental silicon. They use the GM204 chip, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Both have 5,200 million transistors packed into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The architectural lineage diverges in their product families: the GTX 980M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, while the Quadro M3000M is part of the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) lineup.

The execution resources differ significantly. The GTX 980M carries 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Quadro M3000M is configured with 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This represents a 33% reduction in shader count, a 33% reduction in TMUs, and a 50% reduction in ROPs for the Quadro part. Clock speeds also favor the GTX 980M, with a base clock of 1038 MHz and boost clock of 1127 MHz, compared to 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost on the Quadro M3000M. Both use the same 1253 MHz memory clock with 5 Gbps effective speed, so memory bandwidth parity exists at 160.4 GB/s.

The memory configuration differs in capacity. The GTX 980M ships with 8 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 256 bit bus. The GTX 980M achieves a pixel rate of 72.13 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 108.2 GTexel/s, while the Quadro M3000M reaches 29.57 GPixel/s and 59.14 GTexel/s. FP32 compute performance stands at 3.462 TFLOPS for the GTX 980M versus 1.892 TFLOPS for the Quadro M3000M. The GTX 980M uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the Quadro M3000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the GTX 980M winning every single test in the head-to-head comparison, so its strengths are evident across the board. The largest victory comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 980M scores 23832 against 16646 for the Quadro M3000M, a 43.2% advantage. This indicates a major gap in general-purpose compute performance, useful for tasks like video encoding, scientific simulation, and machine learning workloads that leverage OpenCL.

In DirectX gaming workloads, the GTX 980M leads by 34.6% in DirectX 10, 35.7% in DirectX 11, and 34.8% in DirectX 12. The PassMark G3D score of 7338 versus 5543 shows a 32.4% advantage in overall 3D graphics performance. The GTX 980M also wins in legacy DirectX 9 by 27.6%, with scores of 125 versus 98. For compute through PassMark's GPU compute test, the GTX 980M leads by 31.7%, scoring 2816 against 2139.

The Vulkan gap is the narrowest of all tests at 6.2%, with the GTX 980M scoring 17703 against 16668. This suggests that in Vulkan-specific workloads, the architectural similarities of the two Maxwell 2.0 parts narrow the performance delta. The 2D performance difference is also relatively modest at 21.9%, with scores of 490 and 402. The Quadro M3000M has no recorded wins in any benchmark, so there is no workload category in which it outperforms the GTX 980M according to the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M has 1536 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has 1024. This represents a 33% reduction for the Quadro part.

Q: Do these GPUs have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both have a 256 bit bus width and a memory clock of 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, resulting in 160.4 GB/s bandwidth for both.

Q: Which GPU performs better in DirectX 12?

A: The GTX 980M wins the PassMark DirectX 12 test with a score of 31, compared to 23 for the Quadro M3000M, a 34.8% lead.

Q: What is the power consumption of the Quadro M3000M?

A: The Quadro M3000M has a recorded TDP of 75 W. The GTX 980M has no TDP figure recorded in the database.

Q: How much VRAM does each GPU have?

A: The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use the same memory type and bus width.

Q: In which benchmark is the performance gap the smallest?

A: The Geekbench Vulkan test shows the smallest gap, with the GTX 980M scoring 17703 against 16668 for the Quadro M3000M, a 6.2% difference.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Examining the nine recorded head-to-head results, the GTX 980M dominates every category, but the magnitude of victory varies considerably. The standout result is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 980M scores 23832 versus 16646 for the Quadro M3000M. The 43.2% delta is the largest in the entire comparison, highlighting the GTX 980M's superior compute throughput from its higher shader count and clock speeds.

The DirectX suite shows consistent leads between 34.6% and 35.7%. In DirectX 10, the GTX 980M scores 35 against 26, a 34.6% lead. DirectX 11 sees the GTX 980M at 57 versus 42, a 35.7% advantage. DirectX 12 follows with 31 versus 23, a 34.8% margin. These results suggest that the GTX 980M maintains a stable performance advantage across different DirectX API versions, with the gap slightly widening in the newer API.

The PassMark G3D score, which represents an aggregate 3D graphics performance metric, shows the GTX 980M at 7338 versus 5543, a 32.4% lead. This aligns with the DirectX results and confirms the overall graphics superiority of the GTX 980M. The GPU compute test follows closely with a 31.7% gap, scoring 2816 against 2139. Legacy DirectX 9 performance shows a 27.6% lead, with scores of 125 and 98 respectively.

The 2D performance test shows the GTX 980M leading by 21.9%, with scores of 490 and 402. This narrower gap indicates that 2D workloads are less dependent on the execution resource differences between the two GPUs. The Vulkan test shows the smallest margin at 6.2%, with the GTX 980M scoring 17703 versus 16668. This suggests that Vulkan's lower-level abstraction allows the Quadro M3000M to utilize its resources more efficiently relative to its specifications, though it still falls short.

The nearest rival data puts these results in context. The GTX 980M's average score of 5308 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, 0.3% above the GeForce 840M, 0.5% above the GeForce 940M, and 0.9% below the AMD Radeon R7 M445. The Quadro M3000M's average of 4621 sits within 0.1% of the GeForce GTX 970M, 0.8% below the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, and 1% above the AMD Radeon R5 M230.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification fields. The GTX 980M has a base clock of 1038 MHz and a boost clock of 1127 MHz, while the Quadro M3000M operates at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. The shading unit count differs, with the GTX 980M carrying 1536 units versus 1024 for the Quadro M3000M. Texture mapping units number 96 on the GTX 980M and 64 on the Quadro M3000M. Render output units are 64 on the GTX 980M and 32 on the Quadro M3000M.

Memory capacity differs, with 8 GB on the GTX 980M and 4 GB on the Quadro M3000M. The pixel rate is 72.13 GPixel/s for the GTX 980M and 29.57 GPixel/s for the Quadro M3000M. Texture rate stands at 108.2 GTexel/s versus 59.14 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.462 TFLOPS for the GTX 980M and 1.892 TFLOPS for the Quadro M3000M.

The TDP is recorded only for the Quadro M3000M at 75 W, with no corresponding figure for the GTX 980M in the database. The bus interface differs: the GTX 980M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the Quadro M3000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The generations differ, with the GTX 980M in the GeForce 900M family and the Quadro M3000M in the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) family. The release dates differ, with the GTX 980M released on 2014-10-06 and the Quadro M3000M on 2015-08-17. The predecessors and successors also differ: the GTX 980M succeeds the GeForce 800M and is succeeded by GeForce 10 Mobile, while the Quadro M3000M succeeds Quadro Kepler-M and is succeeded by Quadro Pascal-M. Both share the same process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, transistor density, memory type, memory bus width, memory bandwidth, memory clock, API support, slot width, power connector configuration, and display outputs.