Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
Price now
223$
Games supported
61%
- Interface MXM-B (3.0)
- Core clock speed 654
- Max video memory 2048
- Memory type GDDR5
- Memory clock speed 2800
- Maximum resolution
- Interface MXM-A (3.0)
- Core clock speed 600
- Max video memory 1024 MB
- Memory type GDDR5
- Memory clock speed 4500
- Maximum resolution Depends on system
Price now
433$
Games supported
61%
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 590 | 595 |
| Value for money | 0.39 | 0.20 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | N14E-Q1 | Cape Verde GLM |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (11 years old) | 1 July 2012 (10 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $155 | no data |
| Current price | $223 (1.4x MSRP) | $433 |
Value for money
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 | 576 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 654 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.39 | 21.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 753.4 gflops | 691.2 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro K3000M and FirePro M4000 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 |
| Bus support | no data | n/a |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Form factor | no data | MXM-A |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2800 MHz | 4500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 72 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 |
| StereoOutput3D | no data | 1 |
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_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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.
Quadro K3000M outperforms FirePro M4000 by 2% in our combined benchmark results.
Passmark
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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: 24%
Quadro K3000M outperforms FirePro M4000 by 2% 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: 16%
Quadro K3000M outperforms FirePro M4000 by 38% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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: 16%
Quadro K3000M outperforms FirePro M4000 by 23% 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%
FirePro M4000 outperforms Quadro K3000M by 53% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of Quadro K3000M and FirePro M4000. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 24 Mh/s | 79 Mh/s |
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:
| 900p | 33 | no data |
| Full HD | 33
+32%
| 25
−32%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how K3000M and FirePro M4000 compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- K3000M is 32% faster than FirePro M4000
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K3000M is 16.7% faster than the FirePro M4000.
All in all, in popular games:
- K3000M is ahead in 11 tests (17%)
- FirePro M4000 is ahead in 0 tests (0%)
- there's a draw in 53 tests (83%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 4.16 | 4.09 |
| Memory bus width | 256 | 128 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 576 | 512 |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 | 72 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 33 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Quadro K3000M and FirePro M4000. The differences in performance seem too small.
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.
