Radeon R7 (Kaveri) vs Quadro K3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

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

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
4.25
+167%

K3000M outperforms R7 (Kaveri) by a whopping 167% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking679961
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.69no data
Power efficiency3.94no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 1.1 (2014)
GPU code nameGK104Kaveri
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)4 June 2014 (10 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 cores576512
Core clock speed654 MHz553 MHz
Boost clock speedno data686 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million2410 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattno data
Texture fill rate31.39no data
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs48no data

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)no data

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/sno data
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 data

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 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
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 4.25
+167%
R7 (Kaveri) 1.59

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
+40%
R7 (Kaveri) 1734

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.

K3000M 11902
+165%
R7 (Kaveri) 4483

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
+175%
12−14
−175%
Full HD33
+136%
14
−136%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.70no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Hitman 3 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+86.7%
14−16
−86.7%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+14.3%
14
−14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+33.3%
30−35
−33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Hitman 3 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+86.7%
14−16
−86.7%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−18.8%
19
+18.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+33.3%
30−35
−33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Hitman 3 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+86.7%
14−16
−86.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+33.3%
30−35
−33.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Hitman 3 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+271%
7−8
−271%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
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
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
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
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

This is how K3000M and R7 (Kaveri) compete in popular games:

  • K3000M is 175% faster in 900p
  • K3000M is 136% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K3000M is 550% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 (Kaveri) is 19% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K3000M is ahead in 48 tests (98%)
  • R7 (Kaveri) is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.25 1.59
Recency 1 June 2012 4 June 2014

K3000M has a 167.3% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 (Kaveri), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years.

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

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R7 (Kaveri) is a mobile workstation 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
AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)
Radeon R7 (Kaveri)

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
3.6 13 votes

Rate Radeon R7 (Kaveri) 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.