Quadro 3000M vs Tesla K8
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tesla K8 with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.
K8 outperforms 3000M by a whopping 283% 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 | 525 | 901 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.11 |
| Power efficiency | 7.15 | 2.49 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GF104 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 16 September 2014 (11 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $398.96 |
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 | 1536 | 240 |
| Core clock speed | 693 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 811 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 103.8 | 18.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.491 TFLOPS | 0.432 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 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 | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 80 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 2.1 |
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.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 190−200
+273%
| 51
−273%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 7.82 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how Tesla K8 and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:
- Tesla K8 is 273% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 54 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.24 | 2.41 |
| Recency | 16 September 2014 | 22 February 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
Tesla K8 has a 283% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 3000M, on the other hand, has 33% lower power consumption.
The Tesla K8 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Tesla K8 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro 3000M 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.
