Radeon RX 560X Mobile vs Quadro 3000M

Place in the ranking	817	423
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.20	no data
Power efficiency	2.38	11.75
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GF104	Polaris 21
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	11 April 2018 (6 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 cores	240	1024
Core clock speed	450 MHz	1275 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1202 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	18.00	81.60
Floating-point processing power	0.432 TFLOPS	2.611 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	40	64

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	large
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	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	625 MHz	1450 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	92.8 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

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
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

RX 560X Mobile 11.05
+328%

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

RX 560X Mobile 8212
+434%

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

RX 560X Mobile 19829
+150%

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
+29.4%

−29.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

9.07

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−360%

23
+360%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −213%	25 +213%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	30
Battlefield 5	3−4 −1533%	49 +1533%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −267%	21−24 +267%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −240%	17 +240%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −600%	35 +600%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −500%	42 +500%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −738%	109 +738%
Hitman 3	7−8 −243%	24 +243%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −200%	60−65 +200%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −2150%	45 +2150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −683%	47 +683%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −409%	56 +409%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −76.3%	65−70 +76.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −513%	49 +513%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	21
Battlefield 5	3−4 −1100%	36 +1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −267%	21−24 +267%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −200%	15 +200%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −480%	29 +480%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −300%	28 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −708%	105 +708%
Hitman 3	7−8 −229%	23 +229%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −200%	60−65 +200%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −1700%	36 +1700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −417%	30−35 +417%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −282%	42 +282%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −123%	27−30 +123%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −76.3%	65−70 +76.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −100%	16 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	16−18
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −267%	21−24 +267%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −160%	13 +160%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −320%	21 +320%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −192%	38 +192%
Hitman 3	7−8 −200%	21 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −200%	60−65 +200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −236%	37 +236%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −69.2%	22 +69.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +245%	11 −245%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−400%

30
+400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −450%	21−24 +450%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −325%	16−18 +325%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −333%	12−14 +333%
Hitman 3	8−9 −75%	14−16 +75%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −229%	21−24 +229%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −367%	70−75 +367%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−200%

18−20
+200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
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

−150%

10−11
+150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

This is how Quadro 3000M and RX 560X Mobile compete in popular games:

Quadro 3000M is 29% faster in 1080p

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 3000M is 245% faster.
in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 560X Mobile is 2150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro 3000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
RX 560X Mobile is ahead in 56 tests (82%)
there's a draw in 11 tests (16%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.58	11.05
Recency	22 February 2011	11 April 2018
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	65 Watt

RX 560X Mobile has a 328.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 15.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 560X Mobile 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 RX 560X Mobile 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.