GeForce GTX 775M Mac Edition vs Quadro 3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 3000M with GeForce GTX 775M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.
GTX 775M Mac Edition outperforms 3000M by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 832 | 745 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.27 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.37 | 2.32 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 8 November 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $398.96 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 240 | 1344 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.00 | 89.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | 2.142 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 112 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 160.0 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK 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 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 3.0 |
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 | 51
−27.5%
| 65−70
+27.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.82 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−27.9%
|
55−60
+27.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−27.7%
|
60−65
+27.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−27.9%
|
55−60
+27.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−27.9%
|
55−60
+27.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 3000M and GTX 775M Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- GTX 775M Mac Edition is 27% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.59 | 3.38 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 8 November 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
Quadro 3000M has 33.3% lower power consumption.
GTX 775M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has a 30.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 775M Mac Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 775M Mac Edition is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
