GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition vs Quadro K3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K3000M with GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.
K3000M outperforms GT 640M Mac Edition by a whopping 308% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 681 | 1098 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.79 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.93 | 2.26 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 3 February 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $155 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 654 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 32 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.39 | 23.84 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7534 TFLOPS | 0.5722 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 48 | 32 |
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 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 40 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 3.0 |
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
+313%
| 8−9
−313%
|
| Full HD | 33
+313%
| 8−9
−313%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.70 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Elden Ring | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Elden Ring | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| World of Tanks | 70−75
+350%
|
16−18
−350%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Elden Ring | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Elden Ring | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how K3000M and GT 640M Mac Edition compete in popular games:
- K3000M is 313% faster in 900p
- K3000M is 313% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.28 | 1.05 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 3 February 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 32 Watt |
K3000M has a 307.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GT 640M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, and 134.4% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
