Radeon R7 350 vs Quadro K3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M with Radeon R7 350, including specs and performance data.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
3.92

R7 350 outperforms K3000M by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking723648
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.67no data
Power efficiency3.967.02
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code nameGK104Cape Verde
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 June 2012 (13 years ago)6 July 2016 (9 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

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores576512
Core clock speed654 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3925.60
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPS0.8192 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs4832

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)PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s72 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 outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

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 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA+-

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
−21.2%
40−45
+21.2%
Full HD37
−21.6%
45−50
+21.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.19no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Sons of the Forest 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Fortnite 21−24
−17.4%
27−30
+17.4%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−26.3%
24−27
+26.3%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Sons of the Forest 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Valorant 50−55
−29.6%
70−75
+29.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
−28.6%
90−95
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Dota 2 35−40
−25%
45−50
+25%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Fortnite 21−24
−17.4%
27−30
+17.4%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−26.3%
24−27
+26.3%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
−23.1%
16−18
+23.1%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Sons of the Forest 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Valorant 50−55
−29.6%
70−75
+29.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Dota 2 35−40
−25%
45−50
+25%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−26.3%
24−27
+26.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Sons of the Forest 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Valorant 50−55
−29.6%
70−75
+29.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
−17.4%
27−30
+17.4%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
−16.7%
35−40
+16.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−25%
40−45
+25%
Valorant 40−45
−19%
50−55
+19%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Sons of the Forest 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Valorant 20−22
−20%
24−27
+20%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
−23.1%
16−18
+23.1%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Sons of the Forest 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

This is how K3000M and R7 350 compete in popular games:

  • R7 350 is 21% faster in 900p
  • R7 350 is 22% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.92 5.09
Recency 1 June 2012 6 July 2016
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 55 Watt

R7 350 has a 29.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and 36.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 350 is a desktop one.

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
AMD Radeon R7 350
Radeon R7 350

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
3.7 528 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K3000M or Radeon R7 350, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.