GeForce GT 640M LE vs Quadro M3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M3000M with GeForce GT 640M LE, including specs and performance data.

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.54
+690%

M3000M outperforms GT 640M LE by a whopping 690% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking357914
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.05
Power efficiency13.514.01
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM204GF108
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)4 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$849.99

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 cores1,024Up to 384
Core clock speed1050 MHzUp to 500 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate67.2012.05
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPS0.289 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs6416

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5DDR3\DDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz785 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/sUp to 28.8 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno dataUp to 2048x1536
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray-+
Optimus++
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212 API
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA5.2+

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.

M3000M 14.54
+690%
GT 640M LE 1.84

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.

M3000M 5608
+691%
GT 640M LE 709

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.

M3000M 8289
+558%
GT 640M LE 1259

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.

M3000M 27405
+373%
GT 640M LE 5788

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.

M3000M 16569
+607%
GT 640M LE 2344

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

M3000M 16742
+647%
GT 640M LE 2240

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

M3000M 45
+543%
GT 640M LE 7

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:

900p150−160
+689%
19
−689%
Full HD62
+210%
20
−210%
4K28
+833%
3−4
−833%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data42.50
4Kno data283.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+4500%
1−2
−4500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1229%
7−8
−1229%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+329%
16−18
−329%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+700%
6−7
−700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+422%
9−10
−422%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+117%
35−40
−117%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+4500%
1−2
−4500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+680%
5−6
−680%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1229%
7−8
−1229%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+329%
16−18
−329%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+700%
6−7
−700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+422%
9−10
−422%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90
+650%
12−14
−650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+117%
35−40
−117%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+1229%
7−8
−1229%
Hitman 3 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+329%
16−18
−329%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+422%
9−10
−422%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+117%
35−40
−117%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+875%
4−5
−875%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+722%
9−10
−722%
Hitman 3 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+780%
10−11
−780%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Hitman 3 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+788%
8−9
−788%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%

This is how M3000M and GT 640M LE compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 689% faster in 900p
  • M3000M is 210% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 833% faster in 4K

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the M3000M is 4500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, M3000M surpassed GT 640M LE in all 53 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.54 1.84
Recency 18 August 2015 4 May 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 20 Watt

M3000M has a 690.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 640M LE, on the other hand, has 275% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M LE in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 640M LE 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.

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 M3000M
Quadro M3000M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M LE
GeForce GT 640M LE

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.8 352 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 58 votes

Rate GeForce GT 640M LE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.