Quadro K3000M vs Radeon R9 390

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 390 with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.

R9 390
2015, $329
0 MB GDDR5, 275 Watt
21.15
+447%

R9 390 outperforms K3000M by a whopping 447% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking297749
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.200.72
Power efficiency5.913.96
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGrenadaGK104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (10 years ago)1 June 2012 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329 $155

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

R9 390 has 1317% better value for money than K3000M.

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 cores2560576
Core clock speedno data654 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,200 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate160.031.39
Floating-point processing power5.12 TFLOPS0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs16048
L1 Cache640 KB48 KB
L2 Cache1024 KB512 KB

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-pinno data
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount0 MB2 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 GB/s89.6 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data
Optimus-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan++
Mantle+-
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

R9 390 21.15
+447%
K3000M 3.87

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.

R9 390 8846
+446%
Samples: 3344
K3000M 1619
Samples: 372

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:

900p180−190
+445%
33
−445%
Full HD200−210
+441%
37
−441%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.65
+155%
4.19
−155%
  • R9 390 has 155% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how R9 390 and K3000M compete in popular games:

  • R9 390 is 445% faster in 900p
  • R9 390 is 441% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.15 3.87
Recency 18 June 2015 1 June 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 75 Watt

R9 390 has a 446.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 years.

K3000M, on the other hand, has 266.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 390 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 390 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation 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.


AMD Radeon R9 390
Radeon R9 390
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
Quadro K3000M

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.


4.2 645 votes

Rate Radeon R9 390 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 70 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 390 or Quadro K3000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.