GeForce 840M vs Quadro K3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M with GeForce 840M, including specs and performance data.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
4.26
+50.5%

K3000M outperforms 840M by an impressive 51% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking689803
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.86no data
Power efficiency3.925.92
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameGK104GM108
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)12 March 2014 (10 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 cores576384
Core clock speed654 MHz1029 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1124 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3917.98
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPS0.8632 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs4816

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x8

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1001 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s16.02 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boostno data2.0
Optimus++
GameWorks-+

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
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
CUDA++

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 4.26
+50.5%
GeForce 840M 2.83

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
+50.2%
GeForce 840M 1096

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
+3.7%
GeForce 840M 2340

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
+65.5%
GeForce 840M 7191

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.

K3000M 4226
GeForce 840M 5745
+35.9%

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.

K3000M 14
+16.7%
GeForce 840M 12

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
−36.4%
45
+36.4%
Full HD37
+106%
18
−106%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.19no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Fortnite 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+46.2%
12−14
−46.2%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Valorant 50−55
+22.7%
40−45
−22.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+54.3%
46
−54.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Dota 2 35−40
+33.3%
27−30
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Fortnite 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+46.2%
12−14
−46.2%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+33.3%
9
−33.3%
Valorant 50−55
+22.7%
40−45
−22.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Dota 2 35−40
+33.3%
27−30
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+46.2%
12−14
−46.2%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+100%
6
−100%
Valorant 50−55
+22.7%
40−45
−22.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
+57.9%
18−20
−57.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+45%
20−22
−45%
Valorant 40−45
+72%
24−27
−72%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Valorant 20−22
+53.8%
12−14
−53.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

This is how K3000M and GeForce 840M compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 840M is 36% faster in 900p
  • K3000M is 106% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the K3000M is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K3000M is ahead in 58 tests (98%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.26 2.83
Recency 1 June 2012 12 March 2014
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 33 Watt

K3000M has a 50.5% higher aggregate performance score.

GeForce 840M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 127.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 840M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 840M 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
NVIDIA GeForce 840M
GeForce 840M

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
3.4 953 votes

Rate GeForce 840M 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 GeForce 840M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.