T400 vs Quadro M3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M3000M with T400, including specs and performance data.

M3000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
14.54
+54.7%

M3000M outperforms T400 by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking357470
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.5121.84
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM204TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)6 May 2021 (3 years ago)

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 cores1,024384
Core clock speed1050 MHz420 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1425 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate67.2034.20
Floating-point processing power2.15 TFLOPS1.094 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6424

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s80 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 outputs3x mini-DisplayPort
Display Port1.2no 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.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA5.27.5

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.

M3000M 14.54
+54.7%
T400 9.40

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
+54.7%
T400 3626

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
T400 16953
+2.3%

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
+5.7%
T400 15844

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

M3000M 15678
T400 16856
+7.5%

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 HD62
+55%
40−45
−55%
4K28
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+70.4%
27−30
−70.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+62.5%
24−27
−62.5%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+55%
60−65
−55%
Hitman 3 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+62.2%
45−50
−62.2%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+60%
30−33
−60%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+62.5%
24−27
−62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+68.9%
45−50
−68.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+70.4%
27−30
−70.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+62.5%
24−27
−62.5%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+55%
60−65
−55%
Hitman 3 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+62.2%
45−50
−62.2%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+60%
30−33
−60%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+62.5%
24−27
−62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90
+63.6%
55−60
−63.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+68.9%
45−50
−68.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+57.1%
21−24
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+55%
60−65
−55%
Hitman 3 27−30
+68.8%
16−18
−68.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+62.2%
45−50
−62.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+68.9%
45−50
−68.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+62.5%
24−27
−62.5%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+64.4%
45−50
−64.4%
Hitman 3 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+61.1%
18−20
−61.1%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+60%
55−60
−60%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Hitman 3 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+57.8%
45−50
−57.8%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%

This is how M3000M and T400 compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 55% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 56% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.54 9.40
Recency 18 August 2015 6 May 2021
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 30 Watt

M3000M has a 54.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

T400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the T400 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation card while T400 is a 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 T400
T400

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
3.8 375 votes

Rate T400 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.