K3000M vs K4000M

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

K4000M
5.06
+19.1%

K4000M outperforms K3000M by 19% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking587634
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money1.070.79
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameN14E-Q3N14E-Q1
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 June 2012 (11 years old)1 June 2012 (11 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$155
Current price$240 $223 (1.4x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K4000M has 35% better value for money than K3000M.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores960576
Core clock speed600 MHz654 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate48.0831.39
Floating-point performance1,154 gflops753.4 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro K4000M and Quadro K3000M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizelargelarge
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-B (3.0)

Memory

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed2800 MHz2800 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s89.6 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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

Technologies

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

Optimus++

API support

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

K4000M 5.06
+19.1%
K3000M 4.25

K4000M outperforms K3000M by 19% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

K4000M 1960
+19%
K3000M 1647

K4000M outperforms K3000M by 19% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

K4000M 15362
+29.1%
K3000M 11902

K4000M outperforms K3000M by 29% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

K4000M 3466
+42.8%
K3000M 2427

K4000M outperforms K3000M by 43% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

K4000M 5533
+30.3%
K3000M 4247

K4000M outperforms K3000M by 30% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

K4000M 22
+57.1%
K3000M 14

K4000M outperforms K3000M by 57% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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:

900p35−40
+6.1%
33
−6.1%
Full HD47
+27%
37
−27%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Hitman 3 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Hitman 3 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Hitman 3 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

This is how K4000M and K3000M compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

  • K4000M is 6.1% faster than K3000M

1080p resolution:

  • K4000M is 27% faster than K3000M

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

  • in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K4000M is 100% faster than the K3000M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K4000M is ahead in 53 tests (88%)
  • there's a draw in 7 tests (12%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 5.06 4.25
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 75 Watt

The Quadro K4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.


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

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
Quadro K4000M
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
Quadro K3000M

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 12 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro K4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 62 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro K3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.