NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data available for this comparison is surprisingly sparse, with no overlapping test results between the two cards. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB has a single recorded score in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, reaching 4791 points, which places it in the 28th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, by contrast, has nine recorded benchmarks spanning OpenCL, Vulkan, and multiple Passmark DirectX versions, with an average score of 4621 points and a 27th percentile ranking. The RTX 3080 12 GB edges ahead by approximately 3.7% in raw average score, but this comparison is complicated by the fact that the two cards were tested under entirely different workloads.

The RTX 3080 12 GB's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon R5 M255 (4788 points, 0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon R5 M335 (4752 points, 0.8% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844 points, 1.1% ahead). These are all decidedly low-end mobile parts, which suggests the RTX 3080 12 GB's single benchmark result may not fully represent its capabilities in the broader GPU landscape. The Quadro M3000M's closest competitors include the GeForce GTX 970M (4628 points, 0.1% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657 points, 0.8% ahead), indicating it sits in a similar performance tier despite being a professional mobile workstation card from a much older generation.

The lack of head-to-head benchmark entries means there are no direct wins for either card to tally. However, examining the individual scores from the Quadro M3000M reveals a peculiar pattern. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 98 and DirectX 10 score of 26 are remarkably low, while its DirectX 11 score of 42 and DirectX 12 score of 23 are even more modest. The Passmark G3D score of 5543 is far more respectable, and the Geekbench OpenCL score of 16646 with a Vulkan score of 16668 shows the card performing competitively in compute-oriented tasks. These divergent results hint at driver maturity issues or architectural limitations in legacy DirectX paths, which is curious for a professional-grade product.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting nearly seven years of development time. The RTX 3080 12 GB is built on the GA102 chip using Samsung's 8 nm process, packing 28,300 million transistors into a 628 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 45.1 million per square millimeter. The Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip on TSMC's 28 nm node, with just 5,200 million transistors across a 398 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 13.1 million per square millimeter. The RTX 3080 12 GB therefore crams more than five times the transistors into roughly 1.6 times the silicon area, a signal of process node advances and architectural evolution.

The Ampere architecture in the RTX 3080 12 GB introduces hardware features that simply did not exist in the Maxwell 2.0 architecture of the Quadro M3000M. The RTX 3080 12 GB includes 70 dedicated ray tracing cores and 280 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads. The Quadro M3000M has neither, listing null values for both. This is not merely a specification difference but a fundamental capability gap: the RTX 3080 12 GB can execute real-time ray tracing and DLSS-style AI enhancement, while the Quadro M3000M relies entirely on traditional rasterization and compute shaders.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The RTX 3080 12 GB uses 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 912.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing only 160.4 GB/s. That is a 5.7-fold difference in memory bandwidth, which becomes critical for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and compute workloads. The RTX 3080 12 GB also supports PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro M3000M is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16, halving the available host interface bandwidth for data transfers.

Compute throughput tells an even more dramatic story. The RTX 3080 12 GB delivers 30.64 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, with FP16 at the same 30.64 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The Quadro M3000M manages 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 and offers no FP16 support at all. The pixel rate of the RTX 3080 12 GB is 164.2 GPixel/s versus 29.57 GPixel/s for the Quadro M3000M, and texture rate is 478.8 GTexel/s versus 59.14 GTexel/s. The RTX 3080 12 GB also has 8,960 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, compared to 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the Quadro M3000M.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX 3080 12 GB has an average benchmark score of 4791, while the Quadro M3000M averages 4621. The RTX 3080 12 GB leads by roughly 3.7%, though the two cards were tested with different benchmark suites.

Q: Does the Quadro M3000M support ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: No. The Quadro M3000M has null values for both RT cores and tensor cores. The RTX 3080 12 GB includes 70 RT cores and 280 tensor cores, providing hardware acceleration for ray tracing and AI workloads.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The RTX 3080 12 GB has 12 GB of GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus with 912.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, a 5.7-fold difference in bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The RTX 3080 12 GB achieves 45.1 million transistors per square millimeter on Samsung's 8 nm process. The Quadro M3000M achieves 13.1 million per square millimeter on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: Which card supports newer DirectX features?

A: The RTX 3080 12 GB supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M3000M supports only DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Are there any benchmark results shared between the two cards?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty. The RTX 3080 12 GB has one 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result, while the Quadro M3000M has Geekbench and Passmark results across various DirectX versions.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy, but with caveats. The RTX 3080 12 GB outperforms the Quadro M3000M in every architectural metric that matters: raw compute, memory bandwidth, transistor count, and feature set. Its 30.64 TFLOPS of FP32 is over 16 times the Quadro M3000M's 1.892 TFLOPS, and its 912.4 GB/s memory bandwidth dwarfs the older card's 160.4 GB/s. The RTX 3080 12 GB also brings ray tracing and tensor cores, which the Quadro M3000M entirely lacks.

The Quadro M3000M does have one notable advantage: power consumption. Its 75 W TDP is dramatically lower than the RTX 3080 12 GB's 350 W, and it requires no external power connectors as an MXM module. For mobile workstation deployments where battery life and thermal management are paramount, this efficiency gap is meaningful. The Quadro M3000M also occupies a different form factor entirely, being an MXM module rather than a dual-slot PCIe card.

Yet the benchmark data does not fully support the architectural chasm. The RTX 3080 12 GB's single 3DMark score of 4791 places it at the 28th percentile, while the Quadro M3000M's average of 4621 puts it at the 27th percentile. The nearest rivals for each card are low-end mobile GPUs, suggesting that the benchmark methodology may not capture the full capability of either product. The RTX 3080 12 GB's nearest rival is the GeForce 940MX, a decidedly entry-level part, which seems incongruous with its specifications.

The Passmark results from the Quadro M3000M are particularly revealing. Its DirectX 9 score of 98 and DirectX 10 score of 26 are staggeringly low, suggesting driver optimization issues for legacy APIs. Its Passmark G3D score of 5543 is far more competitive, indicating that the hardware is capable but the software stack may be limiting performance in certain workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 16646 and Vulkan score of 16668 show the card performing respectably in compute tasks, which aligns with its professional workstation positioning.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RTX 3080 12 GB uses the GA102 chip on Samsung's 8 nm process, while the Quadro M3000M uses GM204 on TSMC's 28 nm node. Transistor counts are 28,300 million versus 5,200 million, and die sizes are 628 mm² versus 398 mm². Clock speeds differ substantially: the RTX 3080 12 GB runs at 1260 MHz base and 1710 MHz boost, while the Quadro M3000M operates at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1188 MHz (19 Gbps effective) for the RTX 3080 12 GB versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the Quadro M3000M.

The RTX 3080 12 GB has 8,960 shading units, 280 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 70 RT cores, and 280 tensor cores. The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no RT or tensor cores. Pixel rate is 164.2 GPixel/s versus 29.57 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 478.8 GTexel/s versus 59.14 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 30.64 TFLOPS versus 1.892 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 30.64 TFLOPS for the RTX 3080 12 GB while the Quadro M3000M has no FP16 capability.

Memory configurations are 12 GB GDDR6X on a 384-bit bus versus 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth is 912.4 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s. Power draw is 350 W versus 75 W, with the RTX 3080 12 GB requiring a 750 W power supply and a 12-pin connector, while the Quadro M3000M needs no external power. The RTX 3080 12 GB is a dual-slot card measuring 285 mm by 112 mm by 40 mm, while the Quadro M3000M is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs. The RTX 3080 12 GB supports PCIe 4.0 x16 and DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the Quadro M3000M is limited to PCIe 3.0 x16 and DirectX 12 (12_1).

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3080 12 GB wins decisively in raw graphics performance. Its FP32 throughput of 30.64 TFLOPS enables compute-heavy workloads that the Quadro M3000M cannot approach. The 912.4 GB/s memory bandwidth supports high-resolution textures and large dataset processing without bottlenecking, and the 12 GB frame buffer provides ample capacity for modern game assets and professional visualization scenes. The inclusion of ray tracing cores and tensor cores makes the RTX 3080 12 GB suitable for real-time ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated applications, capabilities entirely absent from the Quadro M3000M.

The Quadro M3000M wins in efficiency and deployment flexibility. Its 75 W TDP is a fraction of the RTX 3080 12 GB's 350 W, enabling use in laptops and compact mobile workstations where power delivery and thermal dissipation are constrained. The MXM module form factor allows for field-replaceable GPU upgrades in compatible systems, whereas the RTX 3080 12 GB is a fixed dual-slot desktop card. The Quadro M3000M also requires no external power connectors, simplifying installation in portable chassis.

For legacy software compatibility, the Quadro M3000M's Maxwell architecture may have advantages in older professional applications that were optimized for that generation. Its Passmark G2D score of 402 suggests reasonable 2D performance, and the card's OpenGL 4.6 support matches the RTX 3080 12 GB. However, its DirectX 9 score of 98 and DirectX 10 score of 26 indicate poor legacy API performance, which could be a liability for older workstation software.

The RTX 3080 12 GB is the clear choice for modern gaming, real-time ray tracing, AI inference, and high-bandwidth compute workloads. The Quadro M3000M is preferable for ultra-mobile professional deployments where power efficiency and modularity outweigh raw performance. The data shows the RTX 3080 12 GB as the superior performer in virtually every measurable category, with the Quadro M3000M's only advantages being power consumption and form factor flexibility.