Quadro K3000M vs FirePro D500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro D500 with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.

FirePro D500
2014
3 GB GDDR5, 274 Watt
10.73
+153%

FirePro D500 outperforms K3000M by a whopping 153% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking395644
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.800.86
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTahitiN14E-Q1
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date18 January 2014 (10 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$155
Current price$475 $223 (1.4x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FirePro D500 has 226% better value for money than K3000M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1536576
Core clock speed725 MHz654 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)274 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate69.6031.39
Floating-point performance2,227 gflops753.4 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on FirePro D500 and Quadro K3000M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length279 mmno data
Width2-slotno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount3 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed5080 MHz2800 MHz
Memory bandwidth243.8 GB/s89.6 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x SDINo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimusno data+

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDAno data+

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:

900p80−85
+142%
33
−142%
Full HD110−120
+144%
45
−144%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Hitman 3 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+156%
9−10
−156%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+186%
7−8
−186%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Hitman 3 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+156%
9−10
−156%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+186%
7−8
−186%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+156%
9−10
−156%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+186%
7−8
−186%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Hitman 3 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 0−1 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

This is how FirePro D500 and K3000M compete in popular games:

  • FirePro D500 is 142% faster in 900p
  • FirePro D500 is 144% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.73 4.24
Recency 18 January 2014 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 274 Watt 75 Watt

The FirePro D500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro D500 is a workstation card while Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro D500
FirePro D500
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
Quadro K3000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 19 votes

Rate FirePro D500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 63 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.