Quadro K3000M vs Quadro 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 4000 with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 4000
2010
2 GB GDDR5, 142 Watt
3.30

K3000M outperforms 4000 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking723698
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.191.79
Power efficiency1.843.89
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGF100GK104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date2 November 2010 (14 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,199 $155

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

K3000M has 842% better value for money than Quadro 4000.

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 cores256576
Core clock speed475 MHz654 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)142 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate15.2031.39
Floating-point processing power0.4864 TFLOPS0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs3248

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 2.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed702 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.86 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortNo 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 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A+
CUDA2.0+

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.

Quadro 4000 3.30
K3000M 3.68
+11.5%

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.

Quadro 4000 1475
K3000M 1646
+11.6%

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.

Quadro 4000 5027
+19.1%
K3000M 4221

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.

Quadro 4000 21
+50%
K3000M 14

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:

900p27−30
−22.2%
33
+22.2%
Full HD30−35
−23.3%
37
+23.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p39.97
−854%
4.19
+854%
  • K3000M has 854% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+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 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+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 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how Quadro 4000 and K3000M compete in popular games:

  • K3000M is 22% faster in 900p
  • K3000M is 23% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.30 3.68
Recency 2 November 2010 1 June 2012
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 142 Watt 75 Watt

K3000M has a 11.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 89.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 4000 is a workstation card while Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation one.

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 Quadro 4000
Quadro 4000
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.


3.5 190 votes

Rate Quadro 4000 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

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro 4000 or Quadro K3000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.