FirePro R5000 vs Quadro K3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K3000M with FirePro R5000, including specs and performance data.
R5000 outperforms K3000M by an impressive 63% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 754 | 626 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.73 | 0.27 |
| Power efficiency | 3.98 | 3.25 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 25 February 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $155 | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
K3000M has 170% better value for money than FirePro R5000.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 576 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 654 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.39 | 39.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7534 TFLOPS | 1.267 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 48 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 279 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D 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 | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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
−51.5%
| 50−55
+51.5%
|
| Full HD | 37
−62.2%
| 60−65
+62.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.19
+337%
| 18.32
−337%
|
- K3000M has 337% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−52.2%
|
35−40
+52.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−57.4%
|
85−90
+57.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−57.1%
|
110−120
+57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−57.1%
|
55−60
+57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−52.2%
|
35−40
+52.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−57.4%
|
85−90
+57.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−57.1%
|
55−60
+57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−57.4%
|
85−90
+57.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−52.2%
|
35−40
+52.2%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
−50%
|
45−50
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−56.3%
|
50−55
+56.3%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−62.5%
|
65−70
+62.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−61.5%
|
21−24
+61.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
This is how K3000M and FirePro R5000 compete in popular games:
- FirePro R5000 is 52% faster in 900p
- FirePro R5000 is 62% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.88 | 6.33 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 25 February 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 350 Watt |
K3000M has 367% lower power consumption.
FirePro R5000, on the other hand, has a 63% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 8 months.
The FirePro R5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while FirePro R5000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
