Radeon PRO W7700 vs Quadro M3000M

Place in the ranking	358	36
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	69.53
Power efficiency	13.46	21.44
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	GM204	Navi 32
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$999

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	1,024	3072
Core clock speed	1050 MHz	1900 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2600 MHz
Number of transistors	5,200 million	28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	190 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.20	499.2
Floating-point processing power	2.15 TFLOPS	31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	96
TMUs	64	192
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	48

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	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 8-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 type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	160 GB/s	576.0 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	4x DisplayPort 2.1
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

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.

DirectX	12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.2
Vulkan	+	1.3
CUDA	5.2	-

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 14.67

PRO W7700 59.17
+303%

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 5638

PRO W7700 22747
+303%

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	60 −300%	240−250 +300%
4K	32 −275%	120−130 +275%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	4.16
4K	no data	8.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −279%	110−120 +279%
Elden Ring	45−50 −300%	180−190 +300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −296%	190−200 +296%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −279%	110−120 +279%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −290%	230−240 +290%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −300%	160−170 +300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −289%	140−150 +289%
Valorant	55−60 −297%	230−240 +297%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −296%	190−200 +296%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −279%	110−120 +279%
Dota 2	33 −294%	130−140 +294%
Elden Ring	45−50 −300%	180−190 +300%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −289%	210−220 +289%
Fortnite	80−85 −266%	300−310 +266%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −290%	230−240 +290%
Grand Theft Auto V	49 −288%	190−200 +288%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −300%	160−170 +300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −277%	400−450 +277%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −289%	140−150 +289%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 −300%	180−190 +300%
Valorant	55−60 −297%	230−240 +297%
World of Tanks	190−200 −293%	750−800 +293%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −296%	190−200 +296%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −279%	110−120 +279%
Dota 2	50−55 −296%	210−220 +296%
Far Cry 5	50−55 −289%	210−220 +289%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −290%	230−240 +290%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −277%	400−450 +277%
Valorant	55−60 −297%	230−240 +297%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 −281%	80−85 +281%
Elden Ring	21−24 −291%	90−95 +291%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −286%	85−90 +286%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 −291%	500−550 +291%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −285%	50−55 +285%
World of Tanks	100−110 −288%	400−450 +288%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−33 −300%	120−130 +300%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −285%	50−55 +285%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −264%	40−45 +264%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −300%	140−150 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −289%	140−150 +289%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −275%	120−130 +275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −295%	75−80 +295%
Valorant	35−40 −278%	140−150 +278%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Dota 2	35 −300%	140−150 +300%
Elden Ring	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Grand Theft Auto V	35 −300%	140−150 +300%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −295%	170−180 +295%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 −300%	140−150 +300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −293%	55−60 +293%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
Dota 2	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −289%	70−75 +289%
Fortnite	16−18 −282%	65−70 +282%
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 −300%	80−85 +300%
Valorant	16−18 −275%	60−65 +275%

This is how M3000M and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

PRO W7700 is 300% faster in 1080p
PRO W7700 is 275% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.67	59.17
Recency	18 August 2015	13 November 2023
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	190 Watt

M3000M has 153.3% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 303.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.

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