Radeon HD 6870 vs Quadro M3000M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M3000M with Radeon HD 6870, including specs and performance data.

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.50
+153%

M3000M outperforms HD 6870 by a whopping 153% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking354592
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.92
Power efficiency13.392.63
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGM204Barts
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)21 October 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$239

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 cores1,0241120
Core clock speed1050 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data900 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million1,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt151 Watt
Texture fill rate67.2050.40
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPS2.016 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs6456

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
Bus supportno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data220 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 6-pin

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1050 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s134.4 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 outputs2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire-+
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.

DirectX12DirectX® 11
Shader Model6.45.0
OpenGL4.54.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+-
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 14.50
+153%
HD 6870 5.74

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 5596
+153%
HD 6870 2216

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
+96.5%
HD 6870 4218

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
+54.2%
HD 6870 17773

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

M3000M 6537
+108%
HD 6870 3141

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

M3000M 44603
+68.7%
HD 6870 26437

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
+146%
61
−146%
Full HD60
−1.7%
61
+1.7%
1200p95−100
+144%
39
−144%
4K28
+180%
10−12
−180%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.92
4Kno data23.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+144%
9−10
−144%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+120%
14−16
−120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+188%
16−18
−188%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+144%
9−10
−144%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+154%
12−14
−154%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+151%
35−40
−151%
Hitman 3 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+103%
35−40
−103%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+220%
14−16
−220%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+135%
20−22
−135%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+55.1%
45−50
−55.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+120%
14−16
−120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+188%
16−18
−188%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+144%
9−10
−144%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+154%
12−14
−154%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+151%
35−40
−151%
Hitman 3 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+103%
35−40
−103%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+220%
14−16
−220%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+135%
20−22
−135%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90
+374%
18−20
−374%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+55.1%
45−50
−55.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+120%
14−16
−120%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+142%
12−14
−142%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+144%
9−10
−144%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+154%
12−14
−154%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+151%
35−40
−151%
Hitman 3 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+103%
35−40
−103%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+135%
20−22
−135%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+15.8%
18−20
−15.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+55.1%
45−50
−55.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+155%
10−12
−155%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+144%
9−10
−144%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+363%
16−18
−363%
Hitman 3 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+123%
12−14
−123%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+144%
35−40
−144%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Hitman 3 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+446%
12−14
−446%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+600%
2−3
−600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%

This is how M3000M and HD 6870 compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 146% faster in 900p
  • HD 6870 is 2% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 144% faster in 1200p
  • M3000M is 180% faster in 4K

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

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M3000M is 2400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, M3000M surpassed HD 6870 in all 70 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.50 5.74
Recency 18 August 2015 21 October 2010
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 151 Watt

M3000M has a 152.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 101.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6870 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon HD 6870 is a desktop 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
AMD Radeon HD 6870
Radeon HD 6870

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.


3.8 347 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 342 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6870 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.