Quadro 3000M vs Radeon R7 M260X
Quadro 3000M
Popular choices:
Radeon R7 M260X
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 Radeon R7 M260X is on rank 410, 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 Radeon R7 M260X
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R7 M260X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.2% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro 3000M.
| Insight | Quadro 3000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi (2010−2014)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon R7 M260X 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 Radeon R7 M260X
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.
Radeon R7 M260X
The Radeon R7 M260X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 6 2015. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 620 MHz to 715 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,013 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro 3000M scores 1,001 and the Radeon R7 M260X reaches 1,013 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro 3000M is built on Fermi while the Radeon R7 M260X uses GCN 1.0, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 240 (Quadro 3000M) vs 384 (Radeon R7 M260X). Raw compute: 0.432 TFLOPS (Quadro 3000M) vs 0.5491 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 M260X).
| Feature | Quadro 3000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,001 | 1,013+1% |
| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 240 | 384+60% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.432 TFLOPS | 0.5491 TFLOPS+27% |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 40+67% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB+233% | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro 3000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro 3000M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 M260X has 4 GB. The Radeon R7 M260X offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (Quadro 3000M) vs 256 KB (Radeon R7 M260X) — the Quadro 3000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro 3000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 4 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro 3000M draws 75W versus the Radeon R7 M260X's 75W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R7 M260X is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro 3000M) vs 350W (Radeon R7 M260X). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile.
| Feature | Quadro 3000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Length | — | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 13.3 | 13.5+2% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R7 M260X is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | Quadro 3000M | Radeon R7 M260X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $139 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $35 |
| Codename | GF104 | Opal |
| Release | February 22 2011 | December 6 2015 |
| Ranking | #888 | #878 |
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 Radeon R7 M260X
