NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 is not a contest of equals; it is a generational chasm. The data shows two GPUs separated by nine years of architectural evolution, with the RTX 4070 GDDR6 representing a fundamentally different era of graphics processing. The Quadro M3000M is an end-of-life mobile workstation part from the Maxwell era, while the RTX 4070 GDDR6 is a recent desktop enthusiast card built on Ada Lovelace. Benchmark results indicate that while the RTX 4070 GDDR6 has a lower aggregate score in the limited data available, its architectural specifications and performance characteristics place it in a different league entirely, though the available benchmark data tells a more nuanced story than a simple generational sweep.

The Verdict

The data presents a peculiar situation: the RTX 4070 GDDR6’s only recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, yields a score of 4334.5, while the Quadro M3000M’s average benchmark score is 4621. This makes the M3000M appear 6.6% faster based on average scores alone, a statistical artifact of comparing a single modern workload against a suite of legacy DirectX 9-12 and compute tests. The RTX 4070 GDDR6’s percentile rank of 25 versus the M3000M’s 27 reinforces this distortion, placing both near the bottom quartile of all GPUs—a ranking that contradicts the hardware specifications. The nearest rivals for the RTX 4070 GDDR6 include the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (average score 4360, delta -0.6%) and the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (average score 4388, delta -1.2%), which are integrated and entry-level mobile parts, respectively. This clustering suggests the Steel Nomad benchmark is punishing the RTX 4070 GDDR6 in a way that masks its true capability, or the single data point is not representative of its broader performance envelope.

For users, the verdict is clear: the RTX 4070 GDDR6 is the only rational choice for modern workloads, despite its lower recorded average score. The M3000M’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance are relics that cannot handle contemporary gaming or professional applications. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 offers 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, 29.15 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, and dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores—features the M3000M lacks entirely. The M3000M’s wins in the legacy Passmark tests (DirectX 9 score of 98, DirectX 11 score of 42, DirectX 10 score of 26, DirectX 12 score of 23) are meaningless for modern users, as these tests are optimized for older architectures. The RTX 4070 GDDR6’s launch MSRP is 599 USD, but no pricing analysis is provided here. The data suggests that the RTX 4070 GDDR6, despite its anomalous benchmark showing, is the superior product for anyone requiring current-generation performance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is immense, beginning with the manufacturing process. The Quadro M3000M uses a 28 nm node at TSMC, packing 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the RTX 4070 GDDR6 uses a 5 nm process at the same foundry, fitting 35,800 million transistors into a smaller 294 mm² die, achieving a density of 121.8 million per square millimeter—a 9.3-fold increase in density. The M3000M’s chip is GM204, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the RTX 4070 GDDR6 uses AD104, based on Ada Lovelace. This represents a leap from an architecture designed for 2015-era DirectX 12 (12_1) to one supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), with the latter adding hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders.

The core configurations differ dramatically. The M3000M has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The RTX 4070 GDDR6 has 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs—a 5.75x increase in shader count and a 2x increase in ROPs. Critically, the RTX 4070 GDDR6 adds 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores, which are absent from the M3000M entirely. The M3000M’s clock speeds are 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost, while the RTX 4070 GDDR6 runs at 1920 MHz base and 2475 MHz boost, a 2.7x advantage in boost clock. The memory subsystems also diverge: the M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the RTX 4070 GDDR6 uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 480.0 GB/s bandwidth—a 3x increase in capacity and a 2.99x increase in bandwidth, achieved with a narrower bus via faster memory clocks (20 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps effective).

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the M3000M wins in every recorded test, but this is a function of test selection rather than architectural superiority. The M3000M scores 16646 in Geekbench OpenCL and 16668 in Geekbench Vulkan, which are compute-oriented workloads where the older architecture’s raw shader throughput still performs adequately. In Passmark tests, the M3000M shows its legacy strengths: DirectX 9 score of 98, DirectX 10 score of 26, DirectX 11 score of 42, DirectX 12 score of 23, G2D score of 402, G3D score of 5543, and GPU compute score of 2139. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 has no corresponding scores in these tests, so a direct comparison is impossible. The RTX 4070 GDDR6’s only benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, is a modern, demanding workload that stresses ray tracing and advanced features, where the M3000M would fail to run or score near zero.

The practical wins are reversed. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 wins in any scenario requiring modern API support, high-resolution textures, or ray-traced effects. Its 12 GB memory capacity is triple the M3000M’s 4 GB, allowing for larger assets and textures. The RTX 4070 GDDR6’s FP32 throughput of 29.15 TFLOPS is 15.4x higher than the M3000M’s 1.892 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance matches FP32 at 29.15 TFLOPS, whereas the M3000M has no FP16 support listed. The pixel rate of 158.4 GPixel/s and texture rate of 455.4 GTexel/s dwarf the M3000M’s 29.57 GPixel/s and 59.14 GTexel/s. For professional workloads, the M3000M’s 75 W TDP and MXM module form factor made it suitable for legacy mobile workstations, but the RTX 4070 GDDR6’s 200 W TDP and dual-slot design, while power-hungrier, deliver performance that the M3000M cannot approach.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Quadro M3000M have a higher average benchmark score than the RTX 4070 GDDR6?

A: The M3000M’s average score of 4621 is derived from nine different benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL, Geekbench Vulkan, and seven Passmark tests), while the RTX 4070 GDDR6’s score of 4335 is based solely on the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. Steel Nomad is a modern, demanding workload that likely under-represents the RTX 4070 GDDR6’s performance in legacy tests, while the M3000M’s scores come from tests that favor its older architecture.

Q: Does the RTX 4070 GDDR6 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 has 46 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro M3000M, which has no RT cores listed. This makes the RTX 4070 GDDR6 capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing, while the M3000M cannot perform this task efficiently.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The RTX 4070 GDDR6 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory, which is three times the Quadro M3000M’s 4 GB of GDDR5. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 also has higher bandwidth at 480.0 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s, despite using a narrower 192-bit bus compared to the M3000M’s 256-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has better compute performance?

A: The RTX 4070 GDDR6 offers 29.15 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 15.4 times the M3000M’s 1.892 TFLOPS. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 also provides FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the M3000M has no FP16 capability listed.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same era?

A: No. The Quadro M3000M was released in 2015 (release date 2015-08-17) and is based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 was released in 2024 (release date 2024-08-19) and uses Ada Lovelace architecture. The M3000M is end-of-life, as is the RTX 4070 GDDR6, but they represent different generations entirely.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The Quadro M3000M has a 75 W TDP and uses no power connectors, designed for MXM modules in laptops. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 has a 200 W TDP, requires a single 16-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is sparse: the `headToHeadBenchmarks` array is empty, and both `winsA` and `winsB` are zero. This means there are no direct comparative tests run on both cards under identical conditions. The only benchmark recorded for the RTX 4070 GDDR6 is 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 4334.5, which has no M3000M counterpart. The M3000M’s benchmarks are all from Geekbench and Passmark suites, none of which appear in the RTX 4070 GDDR6’s data. This lack of overlap makes a true head-to-head impossible from the provided figures.

However, the M3000M’s individual scores provide a baseline. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 16646 and Vulkan score of 16668 are its highest recorded results. In Passmark, the G3D score of 5543 and GPU compute score of 2139 are standouts, while DirectX 9 (98), DirectX 11 (42), DirectX 10 (26), and DirectX 12 (23) scores are low in absolute terms, reflecting the card’s age. The RTX 4070 GDDR6’s Steel Nomad score of 4334.5, when compared to its nearest rivals—the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (4360, delta -0.6%) and the NVIDIA GeForce 930M (4388, delta -1.2%)—suggests the test is not scaling with the RTX 4070 GDDR6’s hardware capabilities. The M3000M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, delta -0.1%) and AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4657, delta -0.8%), indicating its scores are consistent with mid-range 2015-era mobile GPUs. The RTX 4070 GDDR6’s percentile rank of 25 versus the M3000M’s 27 is a statistical quirk of the limited dataset, not a reflection of real-world performance parity.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 28 nm for the M3000M versus 5 nm for the RTX 4070 GDDR6, with transistor counts of 5,200 million and 35,800 million, respectively. The die sizes are 398 mm² for the M3000M and 294 mm² for the RTX 4070 GDDR6, resulting in transistor densities of 13.1M/mm² and 121.8M/mm². Clock speeds show the RTX 4070 GDDR6’s advantage: base 1920 MHz versus 823 MHz, and boost 2475 MHz versus 924 MHz. Memory specifications diverge completely: the M3000M uses 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth and 5 Gbps effective memory clock, while the RTX 4070 GDDR6 uses 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 480.0 GB/s bandwidth and 20 Gbps effective memory clock.

Core counts are drastically different: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the M3000M versus 5888 shading units, 184 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for the RTX 4070 GDDR6. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 adds 46 RT cores and 184 tensor cores, which the M3000M lacks entirely. Pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s for the M3000M versus 158.4 GPixel/s for the RTX 4070 GDDR6, and texture rates are 59.14 GTexel/s versus 455.4 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 29.15 TFLOPS, with the RTX 4070 GDDR6 also offering FP16 at 29.15 TFLOPS (1:1) while the M3000M has no FP16 figure. TDP is 75 W for the M3000M and 200 W for the RTX 4070 GDDR6, with the former using no power connectors and the latter requiring a 1x 16-pin connector and a 550 W suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the M3000M and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the RTX 4070 GDDR6. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for the M3000M versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RTX 4070 GDDR6. The RTX 4070 GDDR6 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the M3000M’s DirectX 12 (12_1), while both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The M3000M is an MXM module, while the RTX 4070 GDDR6 is a dual-slot card measuring 240 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width.