NVIDIA Quadro M3000M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs, but they serve entirely different physical and performance niches. The P400 is a low-profile, single-slot Pascal card for compact workstations, while the M3000M is a Maxwell 2.0 mobile module for high-performance laptops. Benchmark data shows a massive performance gap between them, with the M3000M taking a decisive win in every synthetic test where both were measured. This comparison is not about close competition; it is about understanding which legacy platform suits a specific task, based strictly on the provided benchmark scores and architectural specifications.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins both, and it wins by a wide margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M3000M scores 16646 against the P400’s 4249, a delta of -74.5% for the P400. In Geekbench Vulkan, the M3000M scores 16668 versus 5119, a delta of -69.3%. There are no benchmark wins for the P400 in this comparison.

Therefore, the verdict is simple. If your workload relies on raw compute performance as measured by these synthetic tests, the Quadro M3000M is the only viable choice between the two. Its average benchmark score of 4621 is actually close to the P400's 4684, but this average includes the M3000M’s additional Passmark tests, which the P400 lacks. Looking solely at the shared Geekbench tests, the M3000M is roughly 3.9x faster in OpenCL and 3.3x faster in Vulkan. The P400 should only be considered if the physical form factor is the absolute constraint—specifically, a need for a single-slot, 150 mm card with no power connectors for a desktop workstation. For any performance-driven task, the M3000M is the pick, provided the system can accommodate an MXM module.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark results, the M3000M wins in all shared testing categories. It is the superior choice for compute-heavy applications like OpenCL-accelerated rendering or Vulkan-based graphics workloads. Its performance advantage is consistent and substantial, making it the default recommendation for performance-sensitive tasks within this comparison.

The P400 has no benchmark wins in this data set. Its only advantage lies in its physical specifications, not its performance. The P400 is a 150 mm single-slot card with a 69 mm height, requiring no power connectors and a 200 W suggested PSU. This makes it suitable for compact, low-power desktop chassis where the M3000M, as an MXM Module with dimensions dependent on the portable device, cannot be installed. The P400's 30 W TDP also suggests it is far easier to cool and power than the M3000M's 75 W TDP, but this is a practical advantage, not a performance one.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures and manufacturing processes. The P400 is based on the Pascal architecture, using the GP107 chip built on Samsung's 14 nm process. It houses 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0M / mm². The M3000M is based on the older Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip built by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 5,200 million transistors on a much larger 398 mm² die, with a lower transistor density of 13.1M / mm².

The architectural differences are stark. The M3000M has a much larger silicon budget, with 4x the shading units (1024 vs 256), 4x the texture mapping units (64 vs 16), and 2x the render output units (32 vs 16) compared to the P400. This explains its superior fill rates and compute throughput. The P400’s advantage is in its modern process node (14 nm vs 28 nm), which allows for higher clock speeds—its base clock of 1228 MHz and boost of 1252 MHz exceed the M3000M’s 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. However, the M3000M’s massive core count overcomes the P400’s clock speed advantage. The P400 also lacks FP16 support at full rate (it operates at 1:64), while the M3000M has no listed FP16 capability. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The P400 has an average benchmark score of 4684, while the M3000M has an average of 4621. However, this average is skewed because the M3000M includes seven Passmark test scores (e.g., DirectX 9, DirectX 11, G2D) that the P400 does not have. In the shared Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests, the M3000M wins by 74.5% and 69.3%, respectively.

Q: Is the Quadro P400 faster than the M3000M in any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark data lists two tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), and the M3000M wins both. The wins counter is 2 for the M3000M and 0 for the P400.

Q: Why does the M3000M have a much higher memory bandwidth?

A: The M3000M uses a 256-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR5 running at 5 Gbps effective, producing a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s. The P400 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 at 4 Gbps effective, yielding only 32.06 GB/s. The M3000M's wider bus is the primary reason for its 5x bandwidth advantage.

Q: Can the P400 be used in a laptop?

A: The P400 is a single-slot desktop card with a 150 mm length and 69 mm height, using PCIe 3.0 x16 and three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. There is no indication in the data that it is designed for portable devices. The M3000M, in contrast, is explicitly an MXM Module with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The P400 has a transistor density of 25.0M / mm² due to its 14 nm Samsung process, while the M3000M has a density of 13.1M / mm² on TSMC's 28 nm process. The P400 is the more modern, dense design, but the M3000M compensates with a much larger die area.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as "End-of-life" in their production status. The P400 was released in February 2017, and the M3000M was released in August 2015.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmarks are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P400 scores 4249, while the M3000M scores 16646. This represents a 74.5% deficit for the P400. In Geekbench Vulkan, the P400 scores 5119, and the M3000M scores 16668, a 69.3% deficit. These are the largest wins for the M3000M, and they are consistent across both compute APIs.

The M3000M also has additional benchmark data that the P400 lacks, including Passmark DirectX 9 (98), DirectX 10 (26), DirectX 11 (42), DirectX 12 (23), G2D (402), G3D (5543), and GPU Compute (2139) scores. These results cannot be compared directly, but they indicate the M3000M has been tested across a broader range of legacy and modern workloads. The P400’s only existing benchmarks are the two Geekbench tests, where it loses decisively. There is no benchmark category in which the P400 outperforms the M3000M.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every significant specification. The P400 uses a 14 nm process, while the M3000M uses 28 nm. The P400 has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die (25.0M / mm² density), whereas the M3000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die (13.1M / mm² density). Clock speeds favor the P400, with a base of 1228 MHz and boost of 1252 MHz, versus the M3000M’s 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. Memory is a major difference: the P400 has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth and 4 Gbps effective speed; the M3000M has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth and 5 Gbps effective speed.

Core configurations are dramatically different. The P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the M3000M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This leads to the M3000M having a significantly higher pixel rate (29.57 GPixel/s vs 20.03 GPixel/s) and texture rate (59.14 GTexel/s vs 20.03 GTexel/s). FP32 compute is also heavily in the M3000M’s favor: 1.892 TFLOPS versus 641.0 GFLOPS. The TDP differs as well: the P400 is rated at 30 W, while the M3000M is rated at 75 W. The P400 is a single-slot card measuring 150 mm by 69 mm, while the M3000M is an MXM Module with no listed dimensions. The P400 has three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and requires a 200 W suggested PSU; the M3000M’s display outputs are portable-device dependent, and no PSU suggestion is given. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 and support the same API levels (DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4).