Quadro K3000M vs Radeon Pro 460

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 460 and Quadro K3000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro 460
2016
4 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
8.95
+111%

Pro 460 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 ranking484676
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.51
Power efficiency17.773.94
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameBaffinGK104
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date30 October 2016 (8 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$155

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 cores1024576
Core clock speed850 MHz654 MHz
Boost clock speed907 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,000 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate58.0531.39
Floating-point processing power1.858 TFLOPS0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs6448

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 sizelargelarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.28 GB/s89.6 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.

FreeSync+-
Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
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.

Pro 460 8.95
+111%
K3000M 4.25

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.

Pro 460 3452
+110%
K3000M 1640

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.

Pro 460 6749
+178%
K3000M 2427

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.

Pro 460 19234
+61.6%
K3000M 11902

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:

900p65−70
+97%
33
−97%
Full HD38
+8.6%
35
−8.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.43

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+131%
24−27
−131%
Hitman 3 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+78.6%
27−30
−78.6%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+127%
10−12
−127%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+81.3%
16−18
−81.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+36.4%
40−45
−36.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+170%
10−11
−170%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+108%
12−14
−108%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+131%
24−27
−131%
Hitman 3 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+78.6%
27−30
−78.6%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+127%
10−12
−127%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+81.3%
16−18
−81.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+36.4%
40−45
−36.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+131%
24−27
−131%
Hitman 3 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+78.6%
27−30
−78.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+81.3%
16−18
−81.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+36.4%
40−45
−36.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+127%
10−12
−127%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+517%
6−7
−517%
Hitman 3 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Metro Exodus 12−14 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+119%
24−27
−119%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%

This is how Pro 460 and K3000M compete in popular games:

  • Pro 460 is 97% faster in 900p
  • Pro 460 is 9% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 460 is 3500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Pro 460 surpassed K3000M in all 65 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.95 4.25
Recency 30 October 2016 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 75 Watt

Pro 460 has a 110.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 460 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.


AMD Radeon Pro 460
Radeon Pro 460
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
Quadro K3000M

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.


4 35 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 460 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 69 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M 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.