Quadro M3000M vs Radeon R9 M395X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M395X with Quadro M3000M, including specs and performance data.

R9 M395X
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
13.46

M3000M outperforms R9 M395X by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking380357
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency12.5213.51
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameAmethystGM204
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date5 May 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 speed723 MHz1050 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate92.5467.20
Floating-point processing power2.961 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 sizelargelarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 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 amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 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
Eyefinity+-
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-
Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212
Shader Model6.36.4
OpenGL4.44.5
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-+
Mantle+-
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.

R9 M395X 13.46
M3000M 14.53
+7.9%

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.

R9 M395X 5194
M3000M 5606
+7.9%

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.

R9 M395X 7921
+21.2%
M3000M 6537

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
−12.7%
62
+12.7%
4K24−27
−16.7%
28
+16.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
−6.5%
30−35
+6.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Battlefield 5 40−45
−7%
45−50
+7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
−7.4%
27−30
+7.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−6.5%
30−35
+6.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−5.4%
35−40
+5.4%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
−5.7%
90−95
+5.7%
Hitman 3 24−27
−8%
27−30
+8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−4.3%
70−75
+4.3%
Metro Exodus 45−50
−6.7%
45−50
+6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−5.4%
35−40
+5.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
−6.8%
45−50
+6.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
−2.7%
75−80
+2.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
−6.5%
30−35
+6.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Battlefield 5 40−45
−7%
45−50
+7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
−7.4%
27−30
+7.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−6.5%
30−35
+6.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−5.4%
35−40
+5.4%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
−5.7%
90−95
+5.7%
Hitman 3 24−27
−8%
27−30
+8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−4.3%
70−75
+4.3%
Metro Exodus 45−50
−6.7%
45−50
+6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−5.4%
35−40
+5.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
−6.8%
45−50
+6.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
−173%
90
+173%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
−2.7%
75−80
+2.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
−6.5%
30−35
+6.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
−7.4%
27−30
+7.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Far Cry 5 30−35
−6.5%
30−35
+6.5%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
−5.7%
90−95
+5.7%
Hitman 3 24−27
−8%
27−30
+8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
−4.3%
70−75
+4.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
−6.8%
45−50
+6.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+50%
22
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
−2.7%
75−80
+2.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−5.4%
35−40
+5.4%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
−7.7%
27−30
+7.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
−8.8%
70−75
+8.8%
Hitman 3 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−7.4%
27−30
+7.4%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−4.8%
85−90
+4.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−4.5%
21−24
+4.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Hitman 3 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
−9.2%
70−75
+9.2%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−16.7%
14
+16.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−5.6%
18−20
+5.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%

This is how R9 M395X and M3000M compete in popular games:

  • M3000M is 13% faster in 1080p
  • M3000M is 17% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M395X is 50% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the M3000M is 173% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 M395X is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • M3000M is ahead in 67 tests (93%)
  • there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.46 14.53
Recency 5 May 2015 18 August 2015
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 75 Watt

M3000M has a 7.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 M395X and Quadro M3000M.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M395X is a notebook graphics card while Quadro M3000M 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.


AMD Radeon R9 M395X
Radeon R9 M395X
NVIDIA Quadro M3000M
Quadro M3000M

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.


4.3 15 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M395X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 352 votes

Rate Quadro M3000M 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.