Quadro K3000M vs Radeon R7 260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 260 with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.
R7 260 outperforms K3000M by an impressive 79% 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 | 606 | 765 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.33 | 0.73 |
| Power efficiency | 5.65 | 3.99 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Bonaire | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 17 December 2013 (12 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $155 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 260 has 356% better value for money than K3000M.
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 | 768 | 576 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 654 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.00 | 31.39 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.536 TFLOPS | 0.7534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 48 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 170 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | no data |
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 | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1625 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 104 GB/s | 89.6 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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:
| 900p | 55−60
+66.7%
| 33
−66.7%
|
| Full HD | 65−70
+75.7%
| 37
−75.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.68
+150%
| 4.19
−150%
|
- R7 260 has 150% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how R7 260 and K3000M compete in popular games:
- R7 260 is 67% faster in 900p
- R7 260 is 76% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.94 | 3.87 |
| Recency | 17 December 2013 | 1 June 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 75 Watt |
R7 260 has a 79% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
K3000M, on the other hand, has 53% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 260 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
