GeForce RTX 3080 vs Quadro K1000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K1000M with GeForce RTX 3080, including specs and performance data.

K1000M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 45 Watt
2.02

RTX 3080 outperforms K1000M by a whopping 3139% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking89026
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.4946.30
Power efficiency3.0814.02
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGK107GA102
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)1 September 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119.90 $699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 3080 has 9349% better value for money than K1000M.

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 cores1928704
Core clock speed850 MHz1440 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1710 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt320 Watt
Texture fill rate13.60465.1
Floating-point processing power0.3264 TFLOPS29.77 TFLOPS
ROPs1696
TMUs16272
Tensor Coresno data272
Ray Tracing Coresno data68

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data285 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 12-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR6X
Maximum RAM amount2 GB10 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit320 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1188 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s760.3 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 outputs1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

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 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.2
CUDA+8.5

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.

K1000M 2.02
RTX 3080 65.42
+3139%

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.

K1000M 777
RTX 3080 25208
+3144%

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.

K1000M 1102
RTX 3080 53713
+4774%

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.

K1000M 5165
RTX 3080 91747
+1676%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

K1000M 1739
RTX 3080 167014
+9504%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

K1000M 1509
RTX 3080 145176
+9521%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

K1000M 1335
RTX 3080 202162
+15043%

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:

900p9
−3122%
290−300
+3122%
Full HD16
−944%
167
+944%
1440p3−4
−4133%
127
+4133%
4K2−3
−4150%
85
+4150%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.494.19
1440p39.975.50
4K59.958.22

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−3050%
120−130
+3050%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−1829%
130−140
+1829%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−20800%
200−210
+20800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−2220%
110−120
+2220%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−3350%
138
+3350%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−3733%
110−120
+3733%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−3080%
150−160
+3080%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−2813%
230−240
+2813%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1557%
116
+1557%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−1244%
240−250
+1244%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−3175%
131
+3175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−2610%
270−280
+2610%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−609%
248
+609%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−1829%
130−140
+1829%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−20800%
200−210
+20800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−2220%
110−120
+2220%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−3250%
134
+3250%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−3733%
110−120
+3733%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−3080%
150−160
+3080%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−2813%
230−240
+2813%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1586%
118
+1586%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−1244%
240−250
+1244%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−3160%
326
+3160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−1058%
130−140
+1058%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−580%
238
+580%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−1829%
130−140
+1829%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−2220%
110−120
+2220%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−3175%
131
+3175%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−3733%
110−120
+3733%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−2813%
230−240
+2813%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1471%
110
+1471%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−911%
182
+911%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−2770%
287
+2770%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−1142%
149
+1142%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−189%
101
+189%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−3175%
131
+3175%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−4933%
150−160
+4933%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−3333%
100−110
+3333%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−3700%
75−80
+3700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−7600%
75−80
+7600%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−8500%
86
+8500%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−3750%
75−80
+3750%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1500%
112
+1500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−2417%
151
+2417%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−11500%
110−120
+11500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
−2145%
247
+2145%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−2500%
130
+2500%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−6400%
65−70
+6400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−2550%
50−55
+2550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−5100%
52
+5100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 45−50
Far Cry 5 1−2
−4500%
45−50
+4500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 54

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−3067%
95
+3067%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 111
+0%
111
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 96
+0%
96
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 88
+0%
88
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 76
+0%
76
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Metro Exodus 107
+0%
107
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 219
+0%
219
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Hitman 3 57
+0%
57
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Metro Exodus 142
+0%
142
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 115
+0%
115
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 43
+0%
43
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 135
+0%
135
+0%

This is how K1000M and RTX 3080 compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3080 is 3122% faster in 900p
  • RTX 3080 is 944% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3080 is 4133% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 3080 is 4150% faster in 4K

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 3080 is 20800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RTX 3080 is ahead in 53 tests (76%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (24%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.02 65.42
Recency 1 June 2012 1 September 2020
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 10 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 320 Watt

K1000M has 611.1% lower power consumption.

RTX 3080, on the other hand, has a 3138.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 400% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 3080 is a desktop 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 K1000M
Quadro K1000M
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080
GeForce RTX 3080

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.


3.7 82 votes

Rate Quadro K1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 6111 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3080 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.