Quadro M3000M vs Radeon E8950

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon E8950 with Quadro M3000M, including specs and performance data.

Radeon E8950
2015
8 GB GDDR5, 95 Watt
12.21

M3000M outperforms E8950 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking379369
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency10.1513.26
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameAmethystGM204
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date29 September 2015 (9 years ago)18 August 2015 (9 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 cores20481,024
Core clock speed735 MHz1050 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,000 million5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate128.067.20
Floating-point processing power4.096 TFLOPS2.15 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs12864

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/s160 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
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-5.2

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 HD55−60
−9.1%
60
+9.1%
4K24−27
−4.2%
25
+4.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 49
+0%
49
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+0%
42
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+0%
22
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+0%
35
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how Radeon E8950 and M3000M compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 9% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 4% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.21 12.59
Recency 29 September 2015 18 August 2015
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 75 Watt

Radeon E8950 has an age advantage of 1 month, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

M3000M, on the other hand, has a 3.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 26.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon E8950 and Quadro M3000M.

Be aware that Radeon E8950 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro M3000M is a mobile workstation one.

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.


AMD Radeon E8950
Radeon E8950
NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
Quadro M3000M

Other comparisons

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.


4.6 14 votes

Rate Radeon E8950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 360 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon E8950 or Quadro M3000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.