Quadro 3000M vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms Quadro 3000M by a whopping 139% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 577 | 824 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.21 |
Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
GPU code name | Vega Renoir | Fermi |
Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Release date | 7 January 2020 (4 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $398.96 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 240 |
Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 450 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | no data | 1,950 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
Texture fill rate | no data | 18.00 |
Floating-point performance | no data | 0.432 gflops |
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 | no data | large |
Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | no data | 625 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 80 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 data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12_1 | 12 (11_0) |
Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
Vulkan | - | N/A |
CUDA | - | 2.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
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.
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 | 20
−155%
| 51
+155%
|
1440p | 24
+140%
| 10−12
−140%
|
4K | 17
+143%
| 7−8
−143%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+215%
|
12−14
−215%
|
Hitman 3 | 11
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 97
+385%
|
20−22
−385%
|
Metro Exodus | 23
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 22
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+100%
|
10−12
−100%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 62
+63.2%
|
35−40
−63.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+215%
|
12−14
−215%
|
Hitman 3 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 73
+265%
|
20−22
−265%
|
Metro Exodus | 17
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21
+90.9%
|
10−12
−90.9%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+53.8%
|
12−14
−53.8%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 50
+31.6%
|
35−40
−31.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+215%
|
12−14
−215%
|
Hitman 3 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 17
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+34.2%
|
35−40
−34.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
Hitman 3 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
Metro Exodus | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3 | 0−1 |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+167%
|
14−16
−167%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Horizon Zero Dawn | 11
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 3000M is 155% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 140% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 143% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1050% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 3000M is 18% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 55 tests (96%)
- Quadro 3000M is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 6.14 | 2.57 |
Recency | 7 January 2020 | 22 February 2011 |
Chip lithography | 7 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 138.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 3000M 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.