Tesla T4 vs Quadro 3000M

Place in the ranking	814	196
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.20	no data
Power efficiency	2.38	27.54
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GF104	TU104
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	13 September 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	2560
Core clock speed	450 MHz	585 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1590 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	70 Watt
Texture fill rate	18.00	254.4
Floating-point processing power	0.432 TFLOPS	8.141 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	64
TMUs	40	160
Tensor Cores	no data	320
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	40

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 3.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	1-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	16 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	625 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	320.0 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	7.5

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

Tesla T4 27.84
+979%

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

Tesla T4 10744
+980%

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

Tesla T4 61276
+1513%

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

−923%

450−500
+923%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

9.07

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−900%

50−55
+900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −977%	140−150 +977%
Hitman 3	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −950%	210−220 +950%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −900%	110−120 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −953%	400−450 +953%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −977%	140−150 +977%
Hitman 3	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −950%	210−220 +950%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −900%	110−120 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −977%	140−150 +977%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −953%	400−450 +953%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −977%	140−150 +977%
Hitman 3	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −950%	210−220 +950%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −900%	110−120 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −977%	140−150 +977%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −953%	400−450 +953%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−900%

60−65
+900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Hitman 3	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −967%	160−170 +967%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−900%

60−65
+900%

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−900%

40−45
+900%

This is how Quadro 3000M and Tesla T4 compete in popular games:

Tesla T4 is 923% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.58	27.84
Recency	22 February 2011	13 September 2018
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	70 Watt

Tesla T4 has a 979.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 7.1% lower power consumption.

The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation card while Tesla T4 is a workstation one.

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