Arc A770M vs Quadro K3000M

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M with Arc A770M, including specs and performance data.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
3.68

Arc A770M outperforms K3000M by a whopping 624% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking692190
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.79no data
Power efficiency3.9117.69
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGK104DG2-512
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$155 no data

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 cores5764096
Core clock speed654 MHz1650 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate31.39524.8
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPS16.79 TFLOPS
ROPs32128
TMUs48256
Tensor Coresno data512
Ray Tracing Coresno data32

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 sizelargelarge
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x16

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 outputsPortable Device Dependent

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 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA+-
DLSS-+

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.

K3000M 3.68
Arc A770M 26.65
+624%

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.

K3000M 1646
Arc A770M 11917
+624%

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.

K3000M 2427
Arc A770M 37375
+1440%

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.

K3000M 11902
Arc A770M 77403
+550%

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:

900p33
−597%
230−240
+597%
Full HD37
−146%
91
+146%
1440p7−8
−686%
55
+686%
4K5−6
−640%
37
+640%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.19no data
1440p22.14no data
4K31.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−720%
80−85
+720%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−1013%
160−170
+1013%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−1313%
113
+1313%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−720%
80−85
+720%
Battlefield 5 16−18
−581%
100−110
+581%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−1013%
160−170
+1013%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−1088%
95
+1088%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−960%
106
+960%
Fortnite 21−24
−487%
130−140
+487%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−495%
110−120
+495%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
−911%
90−95
+911%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−619%
110−120
+619%
Valorant 50−55
−244%
180−190
+244%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−720%
80−85
+720%
Battlefield 5 16−18
−581%
100−110
+581%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
−1013%
160−170
+1013%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
−282%
270−280
+282%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−863%
77
+863%
Dota 2 35−40
−267%
130−140
+267%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−890%
99
+890%
Fortnite 21−24
−487%
130−140
+487%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−495%
110−120
+495%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
−911%
90−95
+911%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
−562%
86
+562%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−1229%
93
+1229%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−619%
110−120
+619%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−1473%
173
+1473%
Valorant 50−55
−244%
180−190
+244%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−581%
100−110
+581%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−738%
67
+738%
Dota 2 35−40
−267%
130−140
+267%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−850%
95
+850%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−495%
110−120
+495%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−619%
110−120
+619%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−364%
51
+364%
Valorant 50−55
−244%
180−190
+244%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
−487%
130−140
+487%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−1480%
79
+1480%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
−570%
200−210
+570%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−2750%
57
+2750%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−465%
170−180
+465%
Valorant 40−45
−433%
220−230
+433%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−7700%
75−80
+7700%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1367%
44
+1367%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−1057%
81
+1057%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−756%
75−80
+756%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−733%
50−55
+733%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
−800%
70−75
+800%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−181%
45
+181%
Valorant 20−22
−765%
170−180
+765%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2100%
22
+2100%
Dota 2 12−14
−592%
90−95
+592%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−1025%
45
+1025%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−940%
50−55
+940%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−725%
30−35
+725%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−750%
30−35
+750%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 37
+0%
37
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+0%
62
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

This is how K3000M and Arc A770M compete in popular games:

  • Arc A770M is 597% faster in 900p
  • Arc A770M is 146% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A770M is 686% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A770M is 640% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A770M is 7700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A770M is ahead in 58 tests (92%)
  • there's a draw in 5 tests (8%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.68 26.65
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 120 Watt

K3000M has 60% lower power consumption.

Arc A770M, on the other hand, has a 624.2% higher aggregate performance score, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while Arc A770M 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 K3000M
Quadro K3000M
Intel Arc A770M
Arc A770M

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.


3.4 70 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 93 votes

Rate Arc A770M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K3000M or Arc A770M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.