GeForce RTX 3080 vs Quadro 3000M

Place in the ranking	814	26
Place by popularity	not in top-100	93
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.20	46.18
Power efficiency	2.38	14.15
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GF104	GA102
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	1 September 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$398.96	$699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 3080 has 22990% 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	240	8704
Core clock speed	450 MHz	1440 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1710 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	320 Watt
Texture fill rate	18.00	465.1
Floating-point processing power	0.432 TFLOPS	29.77 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	96
TMUs	40	272
Tensor Cores	no data	272
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	68

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)	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	285 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 12-pin

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	GDDR6X
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	10 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	320 Bit
Memory clock speed	625 MHz	1188 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	760.3 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	2.1	8.5

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

RTX 3080 65.37
+2434%

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

RTX 3080 25225
+2435%

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

RTX 3080 53713
+3390%

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

RTX 3080 91747
+1055%

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.

Quadro 3000M 3798

RTX 3080 167014
+4297%

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	44 −280%	167 +280%
1440p	4−5 −3025%	125 +3025%
4K	3−4 −2767%	86 +2767%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.07	4.19
1440p	99.74	5.59
4K	132.99	8.13

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−2420%

120−130
+2420%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −1588%	130−140 +1588%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	111
Battlefield 5	3−4 −6867%	200−210 +6867%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −1833%	110−120 +1833%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −2660%	138 +2660%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −2200%	110−120 +2200%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −2171%	150−160 +2171%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1692%	230−240 +1692%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1557%	116 +1557%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −1110%	240−250 +1110%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −7100%	144 +7100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −2083%	131 +2083%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −2364%	270−280 +2364%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −553%	248 +553%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −1588%	130−140 +1588%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	96
Battlefield 5	3−4 −6867%	200−210 +6867%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −1833%	110−120 +1833%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −2580%	134 +2580%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −2200%	110−120 +2200%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −2171%	150−160 +2171%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1692%	230−240 +1692%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1586%	118 +1586%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −1110%	240−250 +1110%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −7100%	144 +7100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −1900%	120−130 +1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −2864%	326 +2864%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −969%	130−140 +969%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −526%	238 +526%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −1588%	130−140 +1588%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	88
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −1833%	110−120 +1833%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −2520%	131 +2520%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −2200%	110−120 +2200%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1692%	230−240 +1692%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1471%	110 +1471%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −810%	182 +810%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −2509%	287 +2509%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −1046%	149 +1046%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −166%	101 +166%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−2083%

131
+2083%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −3675%	150−160 +3675%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −2475%	100−110 +2475%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −3700%	75−80 +3700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −3750%	75−80 +3750%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −8500%	86 +8500%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −2467%	75−80 +2467%
Hitman 3	8−9 −1300%	112 +1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −2057%	151 +2057%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −5700%	110−120 +5700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −1547%	247 +1547%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−2067%

130
+2067%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −7800%	75−80 +7800%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −6400%	65−70 +6400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −2550%	50−55 +2550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −5100%	52 +5100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −4700%	45−50 +4700%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −4500%	45−50 +4500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	54

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−2275%

95
+2275%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	76 +0%	76 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%
Metro Exodus	107 +0%	107 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	219 +0%	219 +0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3	57 +0%	57 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	220−230 +0%	220−230 +0%
Metro Exodus	142 +0%	142 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	115 +0%	115 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	43 +0%	43 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	135 +0%	135 +0%

This is how Quadro 3000M and RTX 3080 compete in popular games:

RTX 3080 is 280% faster in 1080p
RTX 3080 is 3025% faster in 1440p
RTX 3080 is 2767% faster in 4K

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 3080 is 8500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX 3080 is ahead in 57 tests (84%)
there's a draw in 11 tests (16%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.58	65.37
Recency	22 February 2011	1 September 2020
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	10 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	320 Watt

Quadro 3000M has 326.7% lower power consumption.

RTX 3080, on the other hand, has a 2433.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 400% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3080 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 RTX 3080 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.