GeForce 7600 GT vs Quadro K3000M

Place in the ranking	678	1205
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.69	0.01
Power efficiency	3.95	1.01
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code name	GK104	G73
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	9 March 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$155	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K3000M has 16800% better value for money than 7600 GT.

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	no data
Core clock speed	654 MHz	560 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	177 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	40 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.39	6.720
Floating-point processing power	0.7534 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	48	12

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	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 1.0 x16
Width	no data	1-slot
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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	700 MHz
Memory bandwidth	89.6 GB/s	22.4 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

2x DVI, 1x S-Video

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.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model	5.1	3.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	N/A
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. 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.

K3000M 4.25
+633%

7600 GT 0.58

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.

K3000M 1640
+632%

7600 GT 224

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 +725%	4−5 −725%
Full HD	35 +775%	4−5 −775%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.43

49.75

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8

0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Battlefield 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8	0−1
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +767%	3−4 −767%
Hitman 3	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +633%	6−7 −633%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Battlefield 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8	0−1
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +767%	3−4 −767%
Hitman 3	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +633%	6−7 −633%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8	0−1
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +767%	3−4 −767%
Hitman 3	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +633%	6−7 −633%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12
+1000%

1−2

−1000%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7	0−1
Hitman 3	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +767%	3−4 −767%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+700%

1−2

−700%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	0−1	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

0−1

This is how K3000M and 7600 GT compete in popular games:

K3000M is 725% faster in 900p
K3000M is 775% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.25	0.58
Recency	1 June 2012	9 March 2006
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	40 Watt

K3000M has a 632.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

7600 GT, on the other hand, has 87.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7600 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 7600 GT is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.