GeForce GT 710 vs Quadro K3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K3000M with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.
K3000M outperforms GT 710 by a whopping 163% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 692 | 967 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 63 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.79 | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 3.90 | 5.86 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 27 March 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $155 | $34.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
K3000M has 4375% better value for money than GT 710.
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 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 654 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 31.39 | 15.26 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7534 TFLOPS | 0.3663 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 48 | 16 |
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 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 14.4 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 | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 3 displays |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| PureVideo | - | + |
| PhysX | - | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK 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 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
+175%
| 12−14
−175%
|
| Full HD | 37
+363%
| 8
−363%
|
| 1440p | 7−8
+133%
| 3
−133%
|
| 4K | 18−20
+157%
| 7
−157%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.19
+4.4%
| 4.37
−4.4%
|
| 1440p | 22.14
−89.9%
| 11.66
+89.9%
|
| 4K | 8.61
−72.3%
| 5.00
+72.3%
|
- K3000M and GT 710 have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p
- GT 710 has 90% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GT 710 has 72% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+100%
|
5
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+50%
|
35−40
−50%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+115%
|
30−35
−115%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+80%
|
20
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9
−44.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+133%
|
3
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+120%
|
5
−120%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+50%
|
35−40
−50%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+100%
|
18
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+267%
|
3
−267%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+50%
|
35−40
−50%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+425%
|
8−9
−425%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7
−85.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| 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 GT 710 compete in popular games:
- K3000M is 175% faster in 900p
- K3000M is 363% faster in 1080p
- K3000M is 133% faster in 1440p
- K3000M is 157% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K3000M is 433% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, K3000M surpassed GT 710 in all 48 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.68 | 1.40 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 27 March 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
K3000M has a 162.9% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 710, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 294.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 710 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 710 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
