Quadro K3000M vs GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB outperforms K3000M by a whopping 1281% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 39 | 689 |
| Place by popularity | 85 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 63.90 | 1.84 |
| Power efficiency | 24.68 | 3.93 |
| Architecture | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | AD106 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 18 May 2023 (1 year ago) | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $155 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 3373% better value for money than K3000M.
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 cores | 4352 | 576 |
| Core clock speed | 2310 MHz | 654 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2535 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 22,900 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 344.8 | 31.39 |
| Floating-point processing power | 22.06 TFLOPS | 0.7534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 136 | 48 |
| Tensor Cores | 136 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 34 | no 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 size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 240 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 16-pin | 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 type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 89.6 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |
| 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.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | + |
| CUDA | 8.9 | + |
| DLSS | + | - |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 450−500
+1264%
| 33
−1264%
|
| Full HD | 173
+368%
| 37
−368%
|
| 1440p | 92
+1433%
| 6−7
−1433%
|
| 4K | 55
+1733%
| 3−4
−1733%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.88
+45.2%
| 4.19
−45.2%
|
| 1440p | 5.42
+376%
| 25.83
−376%
|
| 4K | 9.07
+469%
| 51.67
−469%
|
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 45% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 376% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has 469% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 259
+2490%
|
10−11
−2490%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+1280%
|
10−11
−1280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 176
+2100%
|
8−9
−2100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 198
+1880%
|
10−11
−1880%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+894%
|
16−18
−894%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+1280%
|
10−11
−1280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 137
+1613%
|
8−9
−1613%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 191
+1810%
|
10−11
−1810%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+961%
|
21−24
−961%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+1011%
|
18−20
−1011%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+1913%
|
8−9
−1913%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1006%
|
16−18
−1006%
|
| Valorant | 300−310
+456%
|
50−55
−456%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 117
+1070%
|
10−11
−1070%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+894%
|
16−18
−894%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+1280%
|
10−11
−1280%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+292%
|
70−75
−292%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 115
+1338%
|
8−9
−1338%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 182
+1720%
|
10−11
−1720%
|
| Fortnite | 240−250
+961%
|
21−24
−961%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+1011%
|
18−20
−1011%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 160−170
+1913%
|
8−9
−1913%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 163
+1154%
|
12−14
−1154%
|
| Metro Exodus | 130
+1757%
|
7−8
−1757%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1006%
|
16−18
−1006%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 270
+2150%
|
12−14
−2150%
|
| Valorant | 300−310
+456%
|
50−55
−456%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+894%
|
16−18
−894%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+1280%
|
10−11
−1280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 103
+1188%
|
8−9
−1188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 171
+1610%
|
10−11
−1610%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+1011%
|
18−20
−1011%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1006%
|
16−18
−1006%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 132
+1000%
|
12−14
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 300−310
+456%
|
50−55
−456%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 240−250
+961%
|
21−24
−961%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400
+1210%
|
30−33
−1210%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101
+2425%
|
4−5
−2425%
|
| Metro Exodus | 79
+3850%
|
2−3
−3850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+503%
|
27−30
−503%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+688%
|
40−45
−688%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+13300%
|
1−2
−13300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 62
+1967%
|
3−4
−1967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 127
+1714%
|
7−8
−1714%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+1833%
|
9−10
−1833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 96
+1500%
|
6−7
−1500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+1788%
|
8−9
−1788%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101
+531%
|
16−18
−531%
|
| Metro Exodus | 48
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 79
+1480%
|
5−6
−1480%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+1450%
|
20−22
−1450%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+1450%
|
6−7
−1450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+2400%
|
5−6
−2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+2300%
|
4−5
−2300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+1875%
|
4−5
−1875%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB and K3000M compete in popular games:
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 1264% faster in 900p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 368% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 1433% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 1733% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is 13300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is ahead in 56 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 58.42 | 4.23 |
| Recency | 18 May 2023 | 1 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 75 Watt |
RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB has a 1281.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
K3000M, on the other hand, has 120% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB is a desktop card while Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
