Quadro 3000M vs GeForce GTX 480
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 480 with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 480 outperforms 3000M by a whopping 313% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 430 | 823 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.64 | 0.25 |
| Power efficiency | 2.95 | 2.38 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GF104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 26 March 2010 (14 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $398.96 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 480 has 556% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 42.06 | 18.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.345 TFLOPS | 0.432 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 60 | 40 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1848 MHz (3696 data rate) | 625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 210−220
+312%
| 51
−312%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.38
+229%
| 7.82
−229%
|
- GTX 480 has 229% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
+520%
|
5−6
−520%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+231%
|
12−14
−231%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
+520%
|
5−6
−520%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+187%
|
14−16
−187%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+343%
|
14−16
−343%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+231%
|
12−14
−231%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+242%
|
24−27
−242%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+220%
|
10−11
−220%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| World of Tanks | 150−160
+223%
|
45−50
−223%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+533%
|
6−7
−533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+187%
|
14−16
−187%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+231%
|
12−14
−231%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+242%
|
24−27
−242%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| World of Tanks | 75−80
+353%
|
16−18
−353%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+243%
|
7−8
−243%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
This is how GTX 480 and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:
- GTX 480 is 312% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 480 is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 480 surpassed Quadro 3000M in all 52 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.70 | 2.59 |
| Recency | 26 March 2010 | 22 February 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 480 has a 313.1% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro 3000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 months, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 480 is a desktop card while Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
