ATI FirePro M7740 vs Quadro K3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K3000M and FirePro M7740, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
K3000M outperforms ATI M7740 by an impressive 99% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 698 | 885 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.79 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.89 | 2.45 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | M97 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 4 August 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $155 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 576 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 654 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 826 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.39 | 20.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7534 TFLOPS | 0.832 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 48 | 32 |
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 | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 846 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 54.14 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
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 (11_0) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/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.
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 | 33
+106%
| 16−18
−106%
|
| Full HD | 37
+106%
| 18−20
−106%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.19 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+38.5%
|
35−40
−38.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+73.2%
|
40−45
−73.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+63.6%
|
21−24
−63.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+38.5%
|
35−40
−38.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+63.6%
|
21−24
−63.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+38.5%
|
35−40
−38.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+63.2%
|
18−20
−63.2%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+180%
|
14−16
−180%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how K3000M and ATI M7740 compete in popular games:
- K3000M is 106% faster in 900p
- K3000M is 106% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the K3000M is 650% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, K3000M surpassed ATI M7740 in all 54 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.68 | 1.85 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 4 August 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 60 Watt |
K3000M has a 98.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
ATI M7740, on the other hand, has 25% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M7740 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
