GeForce GTX 670 vs Quadro P3000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P3000 Mobile with GeForce GTX 670, including specs and performance data.
P3000 Mobile outperforms GTX 670 by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 393 | 437 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.15 |
| Power efficiency | 15.68 | 5.87 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (9 years ago) | 10 May 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 1344 |
| Core clock speed | 1088 MHz | 915 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1215 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 170 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 97.20 | 109.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.11 TFLOPS | 2.634 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 480 KB | 112 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 512 KB |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256-bit GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | 6.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 168 GB/s | 192.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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.
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 | 64
+28%
| 50−55
−28%
|
| 4K | 28
+33.3%
| 21−24
−33.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 7.98 |
| 4K | no data | 19.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+22.9%
|
70−75
−22.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+20%
|
55−60
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+22.9%
|
70−75
−22.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+22.9%
|
70−75
−22.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+28%
|
50−55
−28%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+26.7%
|
45−50
−26.7%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+23%
|
100−105
−23%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+20%
|
55−60
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+22.9%
|
70−75
−22.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+19.4%
|
170−180
−19.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+20%
|
80−85
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+22.9%
|
70−75
−22.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+28%
|
50−55
−28%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+28.9%
|
45−50
−28.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+26.7%
|
45−50
−26.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63
+26%
|
50−55
−26%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+23%
|
100−105
−23%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+20%
|
55−60
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+20%
|
80−85
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+28%
|
50−55
−28%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+26.7%
|
45−50
−26.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+23%
|
100−105
−23%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+22.9%
|
70−75
−22.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+25%
|
24−27
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+20%
|
95−100
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+25.5%
|
110−120
−25.5%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+27.3%
|
110−120
−27.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+22.9%
|
35−40
−22.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+25.9%
|
27−30
−25.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+26.7%
|
30−33
−26.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+25.9%
|
27−30
−25.9%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+26.7%
|
60−65
−26.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+22.2%
|
45−50
−22.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
This is how P3000 Mobile and GTX 670 compete in popular games:
- P3000 Mobile is 28% faster in 1080p
- P3000 Mobile is 33% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.19 | 12.90 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 10 May 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 170 Watt |
P3000 Mobile has a 18% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 127% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 670 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 670 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
