Quadro 3000M vs FirePro V4900
Quadro 3000M
Popular choices:
FirePro V4900
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro 3000M is positioned at rank 120 and the FirePro V4900 is on rank 212, so the Quadro 3000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro 3000M
Performance Per Dollar FirePro V4900
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro V4900 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.8% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro 3000M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro 3000M | FirePro V4900 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the FirePro V4900 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro 3000M and FirePro V4900
Quadro 3000M
The Quadro 3000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 22 2011. It features the Fermi architecture. The core clock speed is 450 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,001 points. Launch price was $398.96.
FirePro V4900
The FirePro V4900 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 1 2011. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 800 MHz. It has 480 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,009 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro 3000M scores 1,001 and the FirePro V4900 reaches 1,009 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro 3000M is built on Fermi while the FirePro V4900 uses TeraScale 2, both on a 40 nm process. Shader units: 240 (Quadro 3000M) vs 480 (FirePro V4900). Raw compute: 0.432 TFLOPS (Quadro 3000M) vs 0.768 TFLOPS (FirePro V4900).
| Feature | Quadro 3000M | FirePro V4900 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,001 | 1,009 |
| Architecture | Fermi | TeraScale 2 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 480+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.432 TFLOPS | 0.768 TFLOPS+78% |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 40+67% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB+567% | 48 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro 3000M | FirePro V4900 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro 3000M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the FirePro V4900 has 1 GB. The Quadro 3000M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (Quadro 3000M) vs 256 KB (FirePro V4900) — the Quadro 3000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro 3000M | FirePro V4900 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB+100% | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro 3000M draws 75W versus the FirePro V4900's 75W — a 0% difference. The FirePro V4900 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro 3000M) vs 350W (FirePro V4900). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro 3000M | FirePro V4900 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 163mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 13.3 | 13.5+2% |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro 3000M and FirePro V4900
