Quadro K3000M vs GeForce MX570 A

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX570 A with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.

MX570 A
2022
2 GB GDDR6, 25 Watt
15.87
+274%

MX570 A outperforms K3000M by a whopping 274% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking346689
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.83
Power efficiency44.193.94
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2024)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGA107GK104
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release dateMay 2022 (2 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$155

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores2048576
Core clock speed832 MHz654 MHz
Boost clock speed1155 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate73.9231.39
Floating-point processing power4.731 TFLOPS0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs4032
TMUs6448
Tensor Cores64no data
Ray Tracing Cores16no data

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR6GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s89.6 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.65.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan1.3+
CUDA8.6+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

MX570 A 15.87
+274%
K3000M 4.24

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.

MX570 A 6159
+274%
K3000M 1646

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:

900p120−130
+264%
33
−264%
Full HD120−130
+264%
33
−264%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.70

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
World of Tanks 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
World of Tanks 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how MX570 A and K3000M compete in popular games:

  • MX570 A is 264% faster in 900p
  • MX570 A is 264% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.87 4.24
Chip lithography 8 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 75 Watt

MX570 A has a 274.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX570 A is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX570 A is a notebook graphics 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.


NVIDIA GeForce MX570 A
GeForce MX570 A
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
Quadro K3000M

Other comparisons

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.


3.8 58 votes

Rate GeForce MX570 A on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 70 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.