GeForce MX550 vs Quadro 3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 3000M with GeForce MX550, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 3000M
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.58

MX550 outperforms 3000M by a whopping 357% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking819405
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.20no data
Power efficiency2.4032.87
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGF104TU117S
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date22 February 2011 (13 years ago)17 December 2021 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$398.96 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores2401024
Core clock speed450 MHz1065 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1320 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate18.0042.24
Floating-point processing power0.432 TFLOPS2.703 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs4032

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed625 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s96 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA2.17.5

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.

Quadro 3000M 2.58
GeForce MX550 11.79
+357%

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.

Quadro 3000M 995
GeForce MX550 4546
+357%

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.

Quadro 3000M 1539
GeForce MX550 10005
+550%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Quadro 3000M 7941
GeForce MX550 36560
+360%

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 HD51
+10.9%
46
−10.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.82no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−250%
27−30
+250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 18−20
Battlefield 5 3−4
−1167%
35−40
+1167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−371%
30−35
+371%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−500%
75−80
+500%
Hitman 3 7−8
−214%
21−24
+214%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−215%
60−65
+215%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1850%
35−40
+1850%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−450%
30−35
+450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−245%
35−40
+245%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−81.6%
65−70
+81.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−250%
27−30
+250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 18−20
Battlefield 5 3−4
−1167%
35−40
+1167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
−371%
30−35
+371%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−500%
75−80
+500%
Hitman 3 7−8
−214%
21−24
+214%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−215%
60−65
+215%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1850%
35−40
+1850%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−450%
30−35
+450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−373%
52
+373%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−131%
30−33
+131%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−81.6%
65−70
+81.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−250%
27−30
+250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 18−20
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−260%
18−20
+260%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−500%
75−80
+500%
Hitman 3 7−8
−214%
21−24
+214%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−215%
60−65
+215%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−282%
42
+282%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−108%
27
+108%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−81.6%
65−70
+81.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−450%
30−35
+450%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−475%
21−24
+475%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−500%
12−14
+500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−500%
12−14
+500%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Hitman 3 8−9
−87.5%
14−16
+87.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
−243%
24−27
+243%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−500%
12−14
+500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
−393%
70−75
+393%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−217%
18−20
+217%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1000%
10−12
+1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 4−5

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−175%
10−12
+175%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how Quadro 3000M and GeForce MX550 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 3000M is 11% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX550 is 1850% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX550 is ahead in 57 tests (84%)
  • there's a draw in 11 tests (16%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.58 11.79
Recency 22 February 2011 17 December 2021
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 25 Watt

GeForce MX550 has a 357% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX550 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 MX550 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
Quadro 3000M
NVIDIA GeForce MX550
GeForce MX550

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 49 votes

Rate Quadro 3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 786 votes

Rate GeForce MX550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.