Radeon Pro W6800X Duo vs Quadro 3000M

Place in the ranking	817	102
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.20	6.36
Power efficiency	2.40	7.03
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GF104	Navi 21
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	3 August 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$398.96	$4,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro W6800X Duo has 3080% 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	3840
Core clock speed	450 MHz	1800 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1967 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	400 Watt
Texture fill rate	18.00	472.1
Floating-point processing power	0.432 TFLOPS	15.11 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	96
TMUs	40	240
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	60

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)	Apple MPX
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	Quad-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	625 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	512.0 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	1x HDMI 2.1, 4x Thunderbolt
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	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
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.

Quadro 3000M 2.58

Pro W6800X Duo 40.32
+1463%

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

Pro W6800X Duo 15556
+1463%

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

−1371%

750−800
+1371%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

7.82

6.67

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−1400%

75−80
+1400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −1400%	120−130 +1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	3−4 −1400%	45−50 +1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −1400%	90−95 +1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −1400%	75−80 +1400%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1400%	75−80 +1400%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1438%	200−210 +1438%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −1400%	300−310 +1400%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −1400%	90−95 +1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −1445%	170−180 +1445%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −1347%	550−600 +1347%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −1400%	120−130 +1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	3−4 −1400%	45−50 +1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −1400%	90−95 +1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −1400%	75−80 +1400%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1400%	75−80 +1400%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1438%	200−210 +1438%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −1400%	300−310 +1400%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −1400%	90−95 +1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −1445%	170−180 +1445%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −1438%	200−210 +1438%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −1347%	550−600 +1347%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −1400%	120−130 +1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −1400%	90−95 +1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −1400%	75−80 +1400%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1400%	75−80 +1400%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1438%	200−210 +1438%
Hitman 3	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −1400%	300−310 +1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −1445%	170−180 +1445%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −1438%	200−210 +1438%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −1347%	550−600 +1347%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−1400%

90−95
+1400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −1400%	60−65 +1400%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −1400%	60−65 +1400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1400%	45−50 +1400%
Hitman 3	8−9 −1400%	120−130 +1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −1329%	100−105 +1329%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −1433%	230−240 +1433%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−1400%

90−95
+1400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−1400%

60−65
+1400%

This is how Quadro 3000M and Pro W6800X Duo compete in popular games:

Pro W6800X Duo is 1371% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.58	40.32
Recency	22 February 2011	3 August 2021
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	400 Watt

Quadro 3000M has 433.3% lower power consumption.

Pro W6800X Duo, on the other hand, has a 1462.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro W6800X Duo is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon Pro W6800X Duo is a workstation one.

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