GeForce GT 710 vs Quadro K3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M with GeForce GT 710, including specs and performance data.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
3.68
+163%

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 ranking692967
Place by popularitynot in top-10063
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.790.04
Power efficiency3.905.86
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameGK104GK208
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 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 cores576192
Core clock speed654 MHz954 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt19 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data95 °C
Texture fill rate31.3915.26
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPS0.3663 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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x8
Lengthno data145 mm
Heightno data2.713" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1.8 GB/s
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s14.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsDual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA
Multi monitor supportno data3 displays
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

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.

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 3.68
+163%
GT 710 1.40

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
+163%
GT 710 625

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
+117%
GT 710 1947

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
+133%
GT 710 6

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
+175%
12−14
−175%
Full HD37
+363%
8
−363%
1440p7−8
+133%
3
−133%
4K18−20
+157%
7
−157%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.19
+4.4%
4.37
−4.4%
1440p22.14
−89.9%
11.66
+89.9%
4K8.61
−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.

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 GT 710
GeForce GT 710

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
3.1 4428 votes

Rate GeForce GT 710 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 GT 710, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.