GeForce GT 525M vs Quadro K3000M

Place in the ranking	676	1058
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.51	no data
Power efficiency	3.92	3.55
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GK104	GF108
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	5 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$155	no data

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 cores	576	96
Core clock speed	654 MHz	475 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	23 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.39	7.600
Floating-point processing power	0.7534 TFLOPS	0.1824 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	48	16

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	medium sized
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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	89.6 GB/s	28.8 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

Portable Device Dependent

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)	12 API
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
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. 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
+260%

GT 525M 1.18

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
+259%

GT 525M 457

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.

K3000M 2427
+204%

GT 525M 799

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.

K3000M 11902
+210%

GT 525M 3840

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.

K3000M 4211
+126%

GT 525M 1864

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

K3000M 14
+133%

GT 525M 6

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 +154%	13 −154%
Full HD	35 +75%	20 −75%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.43

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8
+133%

3−4

−133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Battlefield 5	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Hitman 3	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +100%	14−16 −100%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +37.5%	30−35 −37.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Battlefield 5	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Hitman 3	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +100%	14−16 −100%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +45.5%	10−12 −45.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +37.5%	30−35 −37.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Hitman 3	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +100%	14−16 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +45.5%	10−12 −45.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +37.5%	30−35 −37.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12
+450%

2−3

−450%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Hitman 3	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +420%	5−6 −420%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+100%

4−5

−100%

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 +200%	1−2 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
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
+150%

2−3

−150%

This is how K3000M and GT 525M compete in popular games:

K3000M is 154% faster in 900p
K3000M is 75% faster in 1080p

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K3000M is 2500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, K3000M surpassed GT 525M in all 47 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.25	1.18
Recency	1 June 2012	5 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	23 Watt

K3000M has a 260.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 525M, on the other hand, has 226.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 525M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 525M is a mobile workstation one.

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