Quadro K3000M vs Quadro 5000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 5000M and Quadro K3000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro 5000M
2010
1792 MB GDDR5, 100 Watt
5.34
+25.4%

5000M outperforms K3000M by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking615680
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.72
Power efficiency3.663.89
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGF100GK104
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date27 July 2010 (14 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 cores320576
Core clock speed405 MHz654 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate16.2031.39
Floating-point processing power0.5184 TFLOPS0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs4048

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
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-B (3.0)

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 amount1792 MB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth76.8 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.

Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A+
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.

Quadro 5000M 5.34
+25.4%
K3000M 4.26

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.

Quadro 5000M 2059
+25.3%
K3000M 1643

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.

Quadro 5000M 7767
K3000M 11902
+53.2%

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:

900p40−45
+21.2%
33
−21.2%
Full HD40−45
+21.2%
33
−21.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.70

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+30.8%
24−27
−30.8%
Hitman 3 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+21.4%
27−30
−21.4%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+6.8%
40−45
−6.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+30.8%
24−27
−30.8%
Hitman 3 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+21.4%
27−30
−21.4%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+6.8%
40−45
−6.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+30.8%
24−27
−30.8%
Hitman 3 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+21.4%
27−30
−21.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+6.8%
40−45
−6.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+30.8%
24−27
−30.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

This is how Quadro 5000M and K3000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 5000M is 21% faster in 900p
  • Quadro 5000M is 21% 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 Quadro 5000M is 800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro 5000M is ahead in 59 tests (91%)
  • there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.34 4.26
Recency 27 July 2010 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 1792 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro 5000M has a 25.4% higher aggregate performance score.

K3000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 14.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 5000M 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.


NVIDIA Quadro 5000M
Quadro 5000M
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.


5 2 votes

Rate Quadro 5000M 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.