Quadro K600 vs Quadro K3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M with Quadro K600, including specs and performance data.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
4.26
+124%

K3000M outperforms K600 by a whopping 124% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking680909
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.720.26
Power efficiency3.893.18
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK104GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)1 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$155 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K3000M has 562% better value for money than Quadro K600.

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 cores576192
Core clock speed654 MHz876 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt41 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3914.02
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPS0.3364 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs4816

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data160 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s28.51 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 outputs1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort

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.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
CUDA+3.0

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
+124%
Quadro K600 1.90

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
+125%
Quadro K600 731

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
+131%
Quadro K600 1817

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
+180%
Quadro K600 5

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
+136%
14−16
−136%
Full HD33
+136%
14−16
−136%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.7014.21

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
+150%
4−5
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Hitman 3 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+144%
18−20
−144%

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
+150%
4−5
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Hitman 3 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+144%
18−20
−144%

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
+125%
4−5
−125%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%
Hitman 3 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+144%
18−20
−144%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
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
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Hitman 3 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
+160%
10−11
−160%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
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 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
+200%
1−2
−200%
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 Quadro K600 compete in popular games:

  • K3000M is 136% faster in 900p
  • K3000M is 136% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.26 1.90
Recency 1 June 2012 1 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 41 Watt

K3000M has a 124.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro K600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, and 82.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K3000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro K600 is a 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 Quadro K600
Quadro K600

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
2.8 198 votes

Rate Quadro K600 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.