Quadro 4000M vs Quadro K3000M

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M and Quadro 4000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
3.68
+28.7%

K3000M outperforms 4000M by a significant 29% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking696755
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.790.37
Power efficiency3.902.27
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGK104GF104
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)22 February 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$155 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

K3000M has 384% better value for money than Quadro 4000M.

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 cores576336
Core clock speed654 MHz475 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3926.60
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPS0.6384 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs4856

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 sizelargelarge
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-B (3.0)

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
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz625 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s80 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

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.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA+2.1

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.

K3000M 3.68
+28.7%
Quadro 4000M 2.86

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Vantage Performance
    • GeekBench 5 OpenCL
    • Octane Render OctaneBench

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 1646
+28.8%
Quadro 4000M 1278

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
+16%
Quadro 4000M 2092

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
+11%
Quadro 4000M 10722

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 4221
Quadro 4000M 5212
+23.5%

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
Quadro 4000M 18
+28.6%

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:

900p33
+37.5%
24−27
−37.5%
Full HD37
−91.9%
71
+91.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.19
+51%
6.32
−51%
  • K3000M has 51% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Atomic Heart 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Fortnite 21−24
+35.3%
16−18
−35.3%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+26.7%
14−16
−26.7%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Valorant 50−55
+12.5%
45−50
−12.5%
Atomic Heart 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+22.4%
55−60
−22.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Dota 2 35−40
+20%
30−33
−20%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Fortnite 21−24
+35.3%
16−18
−35.3%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+26.7%
14−16
−26.7%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Valorant 50−55
+12.5%
45−50
−12.5%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Dota 2 35−40
+20%
30−33
−20%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+26.7%
14−16
−26.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Valorant 50−55
+12.5%
45−50
−12.5%
Fortnite 21−24
+35.3%
16−18
−35.3%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
+30.4%
21−24
−30.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+19.2%
24−27
−19.2%
Valorant 40−45
+35.5%
30−35
−35.5%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Fortnite 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Atomic Heart 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 20−22
+25%
16−18
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how K3000M and Quadro 4000M compete in popular games:

  • K3000M is 38% faster in 900p
  • Quadro 4000M is 92% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the K3000M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K3000M is ahead in 53 tests (93%)
  • there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.68 2.86
Recency 1 June 2012 22 February 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 100 Watt

K3000M has a 28.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.

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 Quadro 4000M
Quadro 4000M

Other comparisons

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
70 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3
33 votes

Rate Quadro 4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K3000M or Quadro 4000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.