GeForce GT 755M vs Quadro K3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M with GeForce GT 755M, including specs and performance data.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
4.26

GT 755M outperforms K3000M by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking680671
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.72no data
Power efficiency3.896.01
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK104GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)25 June 2013 (11 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 cores576384
Core clock speed654 MHz980 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3931.36
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPS0.7526 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs4832

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16

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 amount2 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1350 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s86.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI-+
HDCP content protection-+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus++
3D Vision / 3DTV Play-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+1.1.126
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 4.26
GT 755M 4.38
+2.8%

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 1643
GT 755M 1688
+2.7%

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
GT 755M 2801
+15.4%

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
GT 755M 12711
+6.8%

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 4199
GT 755M 4930
+17.4%

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
GT 755M 14

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:

900p33
−69.7%
56
+69.7%
Full HD33
+43.5%
23
−43.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.70no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−3.6%
27−30
+3.6%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−3.6%
27−30
+3.6%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−3.6%
27−30
+3.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 1−2
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 0−1 1−2
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

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 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

This is how K3000M and GT 755M compete in popular games:

  • GT 755M is 70% faster in 900p
  • K3000M is 43% 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 GT 755M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 755M is ahead in 20 tests (31%)
  • there's a draw in 45 tests (69%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.26 4.38
Recency 1 June 2012 25 June 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 50 Watt

GT 755M has a 2.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 50% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K3000M and GeForce GT 755M.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 755M 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.

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 K3000M
Quadro K3000M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M
GeForce GT 755M

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.


3.4 69 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 78 votes

Rate GeForce GT 755M 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.