NVIDIA Quadro 4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows only one direct benchmark comparison between these two mobile workstation GPUs, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16,646, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5,211. This represents a 68.7% advantage for the M3000M, a massive generational leap in raw compute throughput. The Quadro 4000M trails by more than a factor of three in this workload, making the outcome unambiguous: the newer Maxwell-based part completely outclasses the older Fermi-based part in general-purpose GPU compute.

This single head-to-head result is the only direct measurement available in the database, so the comparison rests heavily on it. The 4000M offers no benchmark where it wins against the M3000M; the win tally is 0 for the 4000M and 1 for the M3000M. That said, the M3000M also has a much broader benchmark profile recorded, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests, a 2D graphics test, a 3D graphics test, and a GPU compute test. The 4000M has only the single OpenCL result. This asymmetry in available data means the full picture of the 4000M's capabilities is less documented, but the one measurement we do have shows a clear and overwhelming defeat.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The Quadro 4000M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, which scores 5,236, just 0.5% higher. The 4000M also sits within 1% of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X and 1.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, and it is 1.4% behind the GeForce 940M. These are tight margins, indicating that the 4000M is clustered with mid-range mobile GPUs from its era. Its percentile rank among all GPUs is 30, meaning it outperforms 30% of the database.

The Quadro M3000M, by contrast, sits in a different performance neighborhood. Its nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 970M at 4,628, just 0.1% higher. The M3000M is also within 0.8% of the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, and 1% ahead of the Radeon R5 M230. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4,621, which is lower than its OpenCL score alone because it includes several DirectX and 2D/3D tests that score much lower. Its percentile rank is 27, slightly below the 4000M's 30, which is a counterintuitive result given the massive OpenCL delta. This is explained by the fact that the M3000M's percentile is computed from its average across many tests, including older DirectX 9 and 10 workloads where mobile parts often score poorly, while the 4000M's percentile is based solely on its single strong OpenCL result.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 16,646 versus the Quadro 4000M's 5,211, a 68.7% lead.

Q: How does the Quadro 4000M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The 4000M is 0.5% behind the GeForce GTX 760M, 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, 1.1% ahead of the Quadro K3100M, and 1.4% behind the GeForce 940M. All of these deltas are within a narrow band, indicating near parity with those parts.

Q: What is the Quadro M3000M's position relative to its nearest competitors?

A: The M3000M is 0.1% behind the GeForce GTX 970M, 0.8% behind both the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M230. These are again very tight margins.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the 4000M has zero wins, while the M3000M has one win.

Q: Why does the M3000M have a lower percentile rank than the 4000M despite winning the OpenCL test?

A: The M3000M's percentile of 27 is based on its average score across nine different tests, several of which are older DirectX workloads with low scores. The 4000M's percentile of 30 is based on its single OpenCL score of 5,211, which is relatively high for that part.

Q: What API support does each GPU offer?

A: The 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by more than four years of architectural evolution. The Quadro 4000M is built on the Fermi architecture, specifically the GF104 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The Quadro M3000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm node. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, achieving a density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. This is more than double the transistor density, a direct result of the smaller process node and more modern design.

The compute resources differ substantially. The 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The shading unit count is more than tripled, while texture units are modestly increased and ROPs remain identical. This explains why the M3000M's texture rate of 59.14 GTexel/s is more than double the 4000M's 26.60 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 29.57 GPixel/s is more than four times the 4000M's 6.65 GPixel/s. The FP32 compute throughput tells an even starker story: the M3000M delivers 1.892 TFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS for the 4000M, a nearly threefold increase.

Memory configurations also differ. The 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s and a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but with bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s and a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Doubling the capacity and doubling the effective clock rate yields exactly double the bandwidth, a clean improvement. The bus interface also changes from MXM-B (3.0) on the 4000M to PCIe 3.0 x16 on the M3000M, reflecting the newer platform's adoption of standard PCIe connectivity.

Power characteristics are notable. The 4000M has a TDP of 100 W, while the M3000M has a TDP of 75 W. This is a significant achievement for the newer part: it delivers roughly three times the compute performance and double the memory bandwidth while consuming 25% less power. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors, and both have display outputs marked as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely on the laptop's integrated display panel.

Feature support differs in API coverage. The 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer part thus has broader and more modern API compatibility, particularly for Vulkan-based workloads. Neither part has ray tracing or tensor cores, as those features arrived in later architectures.

The Verdict

The data is overwhelmingly in favor of the Quadro M3000M. In the only direct benchmark, it beats the 4000M by 68.7% in OpenCL compute. Its architectural advantages are equally clear: triple the shading units, double the memory bandwidth, double the texture rate, quadruple the pixel rate, and nearly triple the FP32 throughput, all while consuming 25% less power. The M3000M also supports Vulkan and a higher DirectX feature level, making it more future-proof for modern applications.

The 4000M, by contrast, is a relic of the Fermi era. Its single benchmark score of 5,211 places it in a cluster with mid-range mobile GPUs like the GeForce GTX 760M and GeForce 940M, all within 1.5% of each other. It has no Vulkan support, half the memory capacity, and a 40 nm process that limits density and efficiency. The only argument for the 4000M is its slightly higher percentile rank of 30 versus 27, but that is an artifact of the M3000M's broader benchmark profile, not a real performance advantage.

Who should pick which? Based strictly on recorded data, the M3000M is the clear choice for any workload involving OpenCL compute, modern DirectX titles, or Vulkan applications. The 4000M might be considered only if a legacy application specifically requires Fermi-era behavior or if the system's MXM-B interface is a hard constraint, but even then the performance gap is so large that the M3000M is objectively superior in every measurable way. For mobile workstation users, the M3000M's combination of higher performance, lower power draw, and newer API support makes it the only rational selection from these two options.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | GF104 | GM204 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 823 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 924 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 160.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 336 | 1,024 |

| TMUs | 56 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.650 GPixel/s | 29.57 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.60 GTexel/s | 59.14 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 638.4 GFLOPS | 1.892 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 75 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

| Vulkan Support | Not recorded | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2011-02-21 | 2015-08-17 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Mobile | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler-M | Quadro Pascal-M |

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins in every recorded category that matters for modern workloads. Its OpenCL score of 16,646 is nearly triple the 4000M's 5,211, so any OpenCL-based compute task, whether for scientific simulation, video processing, or machine learning inference, will strongly favor the M3000M. Its memory bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s means memory-bound tasks like large texture loads or data-intensive compute kernels will run at twice the speed. Its pixel rate of 29.57 GPixel/s versus 6.65 GPixel/s suggests a major advantage in fill-rate-limited scenarios such as high-resolution display rendering. Its texture rate of 59.14 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s benefits any workload heavy on texture sampling, such as 3D modeling viewports or game development. The M3000M's Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12 (12_1) feature level also make it the choice for applications using those modern APIs.

The Quadro 4000M has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its only potential advantage is its higher percentile rank of 30 versus 27, which is a statistical artifact. However, for legacy applications that predate Maxwell and specifically rely on Fermi-era driver behavior or the older MXM-B bus interface, the 4000M could technically function where the M3000M cannot. That is a compatibility consideration, not a performance one. In terms of raw speed, efficiency, and feature support, the M3000M is the superior GPU in every measurable dimension. The data leaves no room for ambiguity: the M3000M is the clear winner for any use case that can utilize its capabilities, and the 4000M is only relevant for systems with hard interface constraints or software that refuses to run on newer architectures.