ATI Radeon 9600 vs Quadro K3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M with Radeon 9600, including specs and performance data.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
4.26
+4633%

K3000M outperforms ATI 9600 by a whopping 4633% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6801456
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.72no data
Power efficiency3.890.51
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Rage 8 (2002−2007)
GPU code nameGK104RV350
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)1 October 2003 (21 year 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 cores576no data
Core clock speed654 MHz324 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million60 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt12 Watt
Texture fill rate31.391.296
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPSno data
ROPs324
TMUs484

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
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)AGP 8x
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 typeGDDR5DDR
Maximum RAM amount2 GB64 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz189 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s6.048 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

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)9.0 (9_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL1.2N/A
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 4.26
+4633%
ATI 9600 0.09

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 1643
+4594%
ATI 9600 35

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:

900p330−1
Full HD330−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.70no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Battlefield 5 10−11 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 24−27 0−1
Hitman 3 10−11 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30 0−1
Metro Exodus 9−10 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Battlefield 5 10−11 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 24−27 0−1
Hitman 3 10−11 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30 0−1
Metro Exodus 9−10 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 24−27 0−1
Hitman 3 10−11 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4 0−1
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 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.26 0.09
Recency 1 June 2012 1 October 2003
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 64 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 12 Watt

K3000M has a 4633.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

ATI 9600, on the other hand, has 525% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon 9600 is a desktop one.


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
ATI Radeon 9600
Radeon 9600

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 69 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 128 votes

Rate Radeon 9600 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.