Radeon R7 M265DX vs Quadro 3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 3000M with Radeon R7 M265DX, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 3000M
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.55
+99.2%

3000M outperforms R7 M265DX by an impressive 99% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8321044
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.27no data
Power efficiency2.36no data
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameGF104Topaz
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date22 February 2011 (13 years ago)12 October 2014 (10 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.

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 cores240384
Core clock speed450 MHz925 MHz
Boost clock speedno data940 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattno data
Texture fill rate18.0022.56
Floating-point processing power0.432 TFLOPS0.7219 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs4024

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)IGP

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed625 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth80 GB/sno data
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 outputsNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.1-

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.

Quadro 3000M 2.55
+99.2%
R7 M265DX 1.28

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 994
+99.6%
R7 M265DX 498

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
+113%
24−27
−113%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.82no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Battlefield 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Fortnite 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Valorant 40−45
+105%
21−24
−105%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Battlefield 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
+124%
21−24
−124%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Fortnite 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Valorant 40−45
+105%
21−24
−105%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Valorant 40−45
+105%
21−24
−105%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Valorant 21−24
+110%
10−11
−110%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
Valorant 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

This is how Quadro 3000M and R7 M265DX compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 3000M is 113% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.55 1.28
Recency 22 February 2011 12 October 2014
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm

Quadro 3000M has a 99.2% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 M265DX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro 3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M265DX in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R7 M265DX is a mobile workstation one.

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
AMD Radeon R7 M265DX
Radeon R7 M265DX

Other comparisons

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
3.6 29 votes

Rate Radeon R7 M265DX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 3000M or Radeon R7 M265DX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.