GeForce GTX 260 vs Quadro K3000M

Place in the ranking	676	747
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.51	0.14
Power efficiency	3.94	1.20
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GK104	GT200
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$155	$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K3000M has 979% better value for money than GTX 260.

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	576 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	31.39	36.86
Floating-point processing power	0.7534 TFLOPS	0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	28
TMUs	48	64

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 2.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	2x 6-pin
SLI options	-	+

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	896 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	448 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	999 MHz
Memory bandwidth	89.6 GB/s	111.9 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 DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

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)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

K3000M 4.25
+34.9%

GTX 260 3.15

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 1640
+35%

GTX 260 1215

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 +37.5%	24−27 −37.5%
Full HD	35 +45.8%	24−27 −45.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.43

18.71

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8
+40%

5−6

−40%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Battlefield 5	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Hitman 3	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +46.7%	30−33 −46.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Battlefield 5	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Hitman 3	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +46.7%	30−33 −46.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%
Hitman 3	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +46.7%	30−33 −46.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

+37.5%

8−9
−37.5%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Hitman 3	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+60%

5−6

−60%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Hitman 3	0−1	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

This is how K3000M and GTX 260 compete in popular games:

K3000M is 38% faster in 900p
K3000M is 46% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.25	3.15
Recency	1 June 2012	16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	896 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	182 Watt

K3000M has a 34.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 142.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.