Quadro T500 Mobile vs Quadro K3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M and Quadro T500 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
4.26

T500 Mobile outperforms K3000M by a whopping 111% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking689492
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.86no data
Power efficiency3.9234.38
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGK104TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)2 December 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$155 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores576896
Core clock speed654 MHz1365 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1695 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3994.92
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPS3.037 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs4856

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s80 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 outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA+7.5

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 4.26
T500 Mobile 8.97
+111%

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.

K3000M 2427
T500 Mobile 7996
+229%

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
−97%
65−70
+97%
Full HD37
+2.8%
36
−2.8%
1440p7−8
−114%
15
+114%
4K8−9
−113%
17
+113%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.19no data
1440p22.14no data
4K19.38no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Battlefield 5 16−18
−131%
35−40
+131%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−200%
30
+200%
Fortnite 21−24
−122%
50−55
+122%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−94.7%
35−40
+94.7%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−163%
21−24
+163%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−87.5%
30−33
+87.5%
Valorant 50−55
−57.4%
85−90
+57.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Battlefield 5 16−18
−131%
35−40
+131%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
−85.9%
130−140
+85.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Dota 2 35−40
−150%
90
+150%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−180%
28
+180%
Fortnite 21−24
−122%
50−55
+122%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−94.7%
35−40
+94.7%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−163%
21−24
+163%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
−138%
31
+138%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−143%
16−18
+143%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−87.5%
30−33
+87.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−133%
28
+133%
Valorant 50−55
−57.4%
85−90
+57.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−131%
35−40
+131%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
Dota 2 35−40
−108%
75
+108%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−170%
27
+170%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−94.7%
35−40
+94.7%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−100%
16−18
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−87.5%
30−33
+87.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−58.3%
19
+58.3%
Valorant 50−55
−104%
110−120
+104%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
−122%
50−55
+122%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
−117%
65−70
+117%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
−225%
13
+225%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
−107%
60−65
+107%
Valorant 40−45
−121%
95−100
+121%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1800%
18−20
+1800%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−157%
18−20
+157%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−122%
20−22
+122%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
−113%
16−18
+113%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+14.3%
14
−14.3%
Valorant 20−22
−120%
40−45
+120%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Dota 2 12−14
−115%
28
+115%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−180%
14−16
+180%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%

1440p
High Preset

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how K3000M and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T500 Mobile is 97% faster in 900p
  • K3000M is 3% faster in 1080p
  • T500 Mobile is 114% faster in 1440p
  • T500 Mobile is 113% faster in 4K

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

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the K3000M is 14% faster.
  • in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T500 Mobile is 1800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K3000M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • T500 Mobile is ahead in 40 tests (89%)
  • there's a draw in 4 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.26 8.97
Recency 1 June 2012 2 December 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 18 Watt

T500 Mobile has a 110.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 316.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

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 Quadro T500 Mobile
Quadro T500

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
3.1 109 votes

Rate Quadro T500 Mobile 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 Quadro T500 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.