Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
K2000M vs 3000M
Aggregated performance score
Quadro 3000M
2011
2048 MB GDDR5
2.63
+0.4%
K2000M
2012
2048 MB DDR3
2.62
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 775 | 777 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.14 | 0.28 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Fermi | N14P-Q3 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (13 years old) | 1 June 2012 (11 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $398.96 | $265.27 |
| Current price | $447 (1.1x MSRP) | $92 (0.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
K2000M has 100% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.
Technical specs
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 cores | 240 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.00 | 23.84 |
| Floating-point performance | 432.0 gflops | 572.2 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro 3000M and Quadro K2000M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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 size | large | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
Memory
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics 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 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | 2.1 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
3000M outperforms K2000M by 1% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
K2000M outperforms 3000M by 17% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
3000M outperforms K2000M by 30% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
3000M outperforms K2000M by 44% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
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 | 51
+104%
| 25
−104%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 3000M and K2000M compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- Quadro 3000M is 104% faster than K2000M
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 2.63 | 2.62 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 1 June 2012 |
| Cost | $398.96 | $265.27 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 55 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro 3000M and Quadro K2000M.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
