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
4.23

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 ranking686489
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.83no data
Power efficiency3.9334.52
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

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 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. 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 4.23
T500 Mobile 8.91
+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 HD33
−9.1%
36
+9.1%
1440p7−8
−114%
15
+114%
4K8−9
−113%
17
+113%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.70no data
1440p22.14no data
4K19.38no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−100%
18−20
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−142%
27−30
+142%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+12.5%
8
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−89.5%
35−40
+89.5%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
−214%
21−24
+214%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
Valorant 10−12
−209%
30−35
+209%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−142%
27−30
+142%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+50%
6
−50%
Dota 2 12−14
−592%
90
+592%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−27.3%
28
+27.3%
Fortnite 24−27
−112%
50−55
+112%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−89.5%
35−40
+89.5%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
−214%
21−24
+214%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
−138%
31
+138%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−140%
24−27
+140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−91.9%
70−75
+91.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−100%
28
+100%
Valorant 10−12
−209%
30−35
+209%
World of Tanks 70−75
−84.7%
130−140
+84.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−142%
27−30
+142%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−110%
21−24
+110%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+80%
5
−80%
Dota 2 12−14
−477%
75
+477%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−22.7%
27
+22.7%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−89.5%
35−40
+89.5%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
−100%
14−16
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−91.9%
70−75
+91.9%
Valorant 10−12
−90.9%
21−24
+90.9%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
−225%
13
+225%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
−107%
60−65
+107%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
World of Tanks 30−33
−100%
60−65
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−183%
16−18
+183%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−111%
18−20
+111%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−233%
20−22
+233%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−100%
14−16
+100%
Valorant 12−14
−100%
24−27
+100%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Dota 2 16−18
−87.5%
30−33
+87.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+14.3%
14
−14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−100%
24−27
+100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−18.8%
18−20
+18.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−100%
12−14
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Dota 2 16−18
−75%
28
+75%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%
Fortnite 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−267%
10−12
+267%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Valorant 4−5
−100%
8−9
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+0%
19
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
High Preset

Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

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

  • T500 Mobile is 97% faster in 900p
  • T500 Mobile is 9% 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 Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K3000M is 80% faster.
  • in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the T500 Mobile is 592% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K3000M is ahead in 4 tests (7%)
  • T500 Mobile is ahead in 37 tests (69%)
  • there's a draw in 13 tests (24%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.23 8.91
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.


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

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 Mobile

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