cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Reply
microfishd1
Token Ring
Posts: 265
Registered: ‎02-19-2015
Location: US
Views: 2,370
Message 1 of 4

m2000m vs m3000m practical differences?

Hi all!

I know that technically the M3000M is better than the M2000M, and the M3000M is compared to a GTX 965M while the M2000M is compared to a GTX 960M. 

Note that nvidia (http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro-for-mobile-workstations.html) classifies the M3000M as the lowest GPU is the 17.3" platform, while the M2000M is the highest in the 15.6" platform. 

 

Obviously, if you had a laptop with the M3000M, and an identical laptop (identical in every respect except GPU) with the M2000M, the M3000M would outpace the M2000M.   However, they aren't in identical laptops. Which leads to my question(s).

 

With CPU, RAM, resolution, and storage drives being equal, how does the M3000M's practical performance in a 17" laptop match up to the M2000M's practical performance in a 15" laptop? 

Does the extra screen size use most-to-all of the extra video processing power? 

Does the M3000M lose most of its inherent advantage [over the M2000M] because it is powering a bigger display? 

Does the M2000M in a 15" laptop outperform the M3000M in a 17" beast?

Would the M2000M @1080p outperform the M3000M at 4K?

For many purposes I imagine the difference between the two chips would be a wash, yet is this the case on the top end of their capabilities (in their respective machines)?

 

And maybe this isn't the place in this forum to ask this, or even the forum to ask it in, but I was wondering, and thought I'd see what you people say.  Smiley Happy Thanks.

-----------IBM T40: XP PRO SP3, 14.1" 4:3 display, 512MB DDR RAM, 40GB HDD, ThinkLight, DVD.
Lenovo Ideacentre H215: AMD Athlon II X2 215, 500GB HDD, 4GB DDR3 RAM, 64-bit Win7, AMD 760G.
P50 i7, M2000M, 1x16GB RAM, 1080p non-touch, 512GB SSD, 500GB HDD, Backlight, No WWAN, No PWM, No Raid.
practical
802.11n
Posts: 360
Registered: ‎10-19-2008
Location: US
Views: 2,345
Message 2 of 4

Re: m2000m vs m3000m practical differences?

You're looking at the wrong specs.  The laptop screen size is basically irrelevant.

 

There is absolutely no difference in processing performance required to drive a 15" vs a 17" screen; what matters is how many pixels need to be serviced (e.g. data throughput needed) and how much processing is needed to support intended applications with adequate levels of performance.  4K screens obviously have a higher bandwidth requirement than 1080P.  All else being equal, different sized panels themselves may consume more electrical power, depending on technology used -- but that has nothing to do with display adapter chips.

 

Meaningful characteristics of display adapters include: memory, GPU architecture (quantity of processing cores, pipelines, clock speed, bus bandwidth, etc.).  Higher numbered Quadro Series chips have more of these elements and consequently, can perform typical mathematical processing tasks at higher speeds and deliver more rapidly changing display information faster, to whatever panel which they are attached. 

 

The screen size differentiation in this table has nothing to do with the actual screens used, only suggesting correlations with ability of laptop designers to deliver adequate power supply current and cooling capacity to the display controller chips.  It is presumed that larger screens will be part of larger laptops and therefore can be equipped with with more potent cooling capabilities -- hence capable of supporting chips with higher TDP requirement (total thermal load).  P70 machines, by way of example,  have dual fans and an elaborate connecting heat pipe along with control logic to differentially cool either the GPU or CPU, as needed -- it takes a large chassis to accomodate all the plumbing.  Consequently, the higher-end chips graphics can be supported whereas a smaller box might not suffice.

 

There is no reason otherwise to group these chips by screen size.  The distinction has little practical significance to end-users, as long as good engineering design principles have been followed by a reliable manufacturer.   Buy the capabilities you need in packaging that makes sense for your particular usage.

______________________________________________
P70, Xeon 1505 CPU, 64 GB ECC RAM, Samsung 970 Pro 1 TB + 512 GB NVMe Drives, 1 TB HDD, DVD-RW, 4 K Display, NVIDIA Quadro M4000
W700 model 2757-CTO (8 GB RAM, Crucial MX-100 SSD + Hitachi TravelStar 1 TB 7200 RPM Drives, Bluray R/W, NVIDIA Quadro FX3700M, WUXGA); Windows 7 Ultimate SP-1, W700 Mini-Dock
Maximus2016
Token Ring
Posts: 123
Registered: ‎02-05-2016
Location: CA
Views: 2,317
Message 3 of 4

Re: m2000m vs m3000m practical differences?

I suspect that one of the reasons that M3000M is spec'd for bigger laptops is that it has higher power and cooling requirements.

 

As stated by practical, it is the screen resolution, not size in inches that can affect performance.

 

That said, the M3000M has 60% more cores, double the memory bus width and 36% more power consumption versus the M2000M. Does this mean the M3000M is automatically 60% faster? Not necessarily, as not all tasks scale in a linear manner with the numben of cores.

microfishd1
Token Ring
Posts: 265
Registered: ‎02-19-2015
Location: US
Views: 2,265
Message 4 of 4

Re: m2000m vs m3000m practical differences?

Thanks, guys!
It seems that I was on the wrong track altogether.
Thanks for straightening me out, explaining GPU guts to me, and showing me what to look for when reading GPU descriptions. Smiley Happy
-----------IBM T40: XP PRO SP3, 14.1" 4:3 display, 512MB DDR RAM, 40GB HDD, ThinkLight, DVD.
Lenovo Ideacentre H215: AMD Athlon II X2 215, 500GB HDD, 4GB DDR3 RAM, 64-bit Win7, AMD 760G.
P50 i7, M2000M, 1x16GB RAM, 1080p non-touch, 512GB SSD, 500GB HDD, Backlight, No WWAN, No PWM, No Raid.

Check out current deals!


Shop current deals

Top Kudoed Authors