GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and Quadro 2000M are both mobile workstation GPUs from the Fermi generation, but benchmark data clearly separates them. In the single available OpenCL benchmark, the Quadro 3000M decisively outperforms the Quadro 2000M, establishing a clear performance hierarchy within this professional mobile lineup.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL results provide a definitive answer in this comparison. The Quadro 3000M scores 3,718 points, while the Quadro 2000M trails with 3,434 points. This translates to an 8.3% performance advantage for the Quadro 3000M, a substantial margin for two GPUs from the same generation and product family.

This 8.3% gap is significant when placed in context of their respective competitive fields. The Quadro 3000M's score places it 22nd percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000M sits at the 21st percentile. The difference in percentile ranking may appear small, but the raw score delta is what matters for compute workloads. The Quadro 3000M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, which scores 3,717, a mere 0% difference, indicating the Quadro 3000M is effectively performance-equivalent to that consumer part. On the other side, the Quadro 2000M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740, scoring 3,431, a 0.1% delta.

Examining the wider competitive landscape, the Quadro 3000M outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3,694) by 0.6% and beats the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3,649) by 1.9%. The Quadro 2000M meanwhile edges out Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3,389) by 1.3%, surpasses Intel HD Graphics 530 (3,332) by 3.1%, but falls short against the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3,528) by 2.7%. The 8.3% gap between the two Quadro parts is larger than any of the deltas to their nearest rivals, underscoring that this is a meaningful performance tier separation rather than a marginal difference.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is faster, scoring 3,718 compared to the Quadro 2000M's 3,434 in Geekbench OpenCL, an 8.3% advantage.

Q: How does the Quadro 3000M compare to its closest rival?

A: The Quadro 3000M scores 3,718 versus the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M's 3,717, representing a 0% delta, statistically identical performance.

Q: What is the Quadro 2000M's standing against integrated graphics?

A: It beats Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3,389) by 1.3% and Intel HD Graphics 530 (3,332) by 3.1%, showing it remains ahead of contemporary integrated solutions.

Q: Is the Quadro 2000M competitive with other discrete mobile GPUs?

A: It falls 2.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3,528), indicating it sits at the lower end of discrete mobile performance for its era.

Q: Do both GPUs share the same memory bandwidth?

A: No, the Quadro 3000M has 80.00 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus with GDDR5 memory, while the Quadro 2000M has 28.80 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with DDR3 memory.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The Quadro 3000M is rated at 75 W, while the Quadro 2000M consumes less at 55 W.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs utilize NVIDIA's Fermi architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process node, but they employ different chips. The Quadro 3000M is built on the GF104 chip, while the Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip. This fundamental difference in silicon leads to substantial variations in resources and capabilities.

The GF104 chip in the Quadro 3000M packs 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The GF106 chip in the Quadro 2000M is smaller, containing 1,170 million transistors across a 238 mm² die, with a lower density of 4.9M per mm². The Quadro 3000M's larger, denser chip provides a clear foundation for higher performance.

Compute resources differ substantially. The Quadro 3000M features 240 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 2000M is more modestly equipped with 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These differences directly impact throughput: the Quadro 3000M delivers 4.500 GPixel/s pixel rate and 18.00 GTexel/s texture rate, compared to the Quadro 2000M's 4.400 GPixel/s and 17.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute performance is 432.0 GFLOPS for the Quadro 3000M versus 422.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 2000M.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The Quadro 3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, running at 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective speed, producing 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000M also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective speed, yielding just 28.80 GB/s. This 51.20 GB/s bandwidth gap is enormous and likely explains much of the performance delta in memory-intensive workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every major specification category. The Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip, while the Quadro 2000M uses GF106. Transistor count differs by 780 million, with the Quadro 3000M at 1,950 million versus 1,170 million. Die size is 332 mm² versus 238 mm², and transistor density is 5.9M/mm² versus 4.9M/mm².

Memory configuration is starkly different: the Quadro 3000M has 80.00 GB/s bandwidth from GDDR5 at 2.5 Gbps effective on a 256-bit bus, whereas the Quadro 2000M has 28.80 GB/s from DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective on a 128-bit bus. Both have 2 GB capacity, but the memory technology and bus width differences are substantial.

The compute pipelines differ: 240 shading units versus 192, 40 TMUs versus 32, and 32 ROPs versus 16 on the Quadro 3000M and Quadro 2000M respectively. Pixel rate is 4.500 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s, texture rate is 18.00 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 432.0 GFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS.

Power consumption also differs, with the Quadro 3000M rated at 75 W TDP compared to the Quadro 2000M's 55 W. The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) for the Quadro 3000M and MXM-A (3.0) for the Quadro 2000M. Both share the same DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support, use MXM Module slot width, have no power connectors, and feature portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 3000M wins in every benchmark category available in the data, making it the clear choice for compute-heavy professional workloads. Its 8.3% OpenCL advantage, combined with 80.00 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s, makes it substantially better suited for tasks that stress memory throughput and parallel compute. The higher 75 W TDP indicates it can sustain more aggressive performance characteristics, though it draws more power.

The Quadro 2000M's advantages are more modest but still relevant. Its 55 W TDP means lower power consumption, which can be beneficial in thermal-constrained mobile chassis or for users prioritizing battery life over peak performance. The smaller die (238 mm² versus 332 mm²) and fewer transistors (1,170 million versus 1,950 million) suggest potentially lower manufacturing complexity, though both are end-of-life products.

For users targeting specific performance tiers, the Quadro 3000M aligns with the performance level of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (0% delta), while the Quadro 2000M matches the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (0.1% delta). This positioning helps contextualize their capabilities: the Quadro 3000M competes with a mid-range consumer mobile GPU, while the Quadro 2000M aligns with an entry-level desktop part.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M for any performance-oriented workload. Its 8.3% lead in OpenCL compute, combined with nearly triple the memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s), makes it the superior choice for professional applications that leverage GPU compute. The Quadro 3000M's higher resource counts, 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, 32 ROPs versus 192, 32, and 16 respectively, provide a robust foundation that the 2000M cannot match.

However, the Quadro 2000M retains relevance for specific use cases. Its 55 W TDP versus 75 W makes it more suitable for ultra-portable or power-sensitive mobile workstations where battery life and thermal management take priority over raw compute. The 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while far lower than the 3000M, remains functional for less demanding professional tasks.

Users should select the Quadro 3000M if their workflows involve compute-intensive rendering, simulation, or data processing where the 8.3% performance advantage and 51.20 GB/s extra bandwidth translate directly into reduced processing times. The Quadro 2000M is the pragmatic choice for professionals who prioritize lower power draw and adequate performance for lighter workloads. Given that both are end-of-life products, the Quadro 3000M's higher performance ceiling makes it the stronger recommendation from a pure capability standpoint, while the Quadro 2000M appeals to those optimizing for efficiency. The 22nd versus 21st percentile rankings confirm both are entry-level performers by modern standards, but within this pairing, the Quadro 3000M is the definitive winner.