Quadro P500 vs Quadro K3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K3000M and Quadro P500, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K3000M
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
4.25
+0.5%

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking676679
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.51no data
Power efficiency3.9516.38
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK104GP108
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)5 January 2018 (6 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 cores576256
Core clock speed654 MHz1455 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1518 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3924.29
Floating-point processing power0.7534 TFLOPS0.7772 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 sizelargelarge
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s40.1 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 compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA+6.1

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. 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
+0.5%
Quadro P500 4.23

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
+0.6%
Quadro P500 1630

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
Quadro P500 3022
+24.5%

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
Quadro P500 6226
+47.9%

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
+10%
30−35
−10%
Full HD35
+84.2%
19
−84.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.43no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−66.7%
15
+66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+4%
24−27
−4%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
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
+2.3%
40−45
−2.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−55.6%
14
+55.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+4%
24−27
−4%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
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
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+2.3%
40−45
−2.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+12.5%
8
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+4%
24−27
−4%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+100%
8
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+2.3%
40−45
−2.3%

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
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

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 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
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%

This is how K3000M and Quadro P500 compete in popular games:

  • K3000M is 10% faster in 900p
  • K3000M is 84% faster in 1080p

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K3000M is 100% faster.
  • in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P500 is 67% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K3000M is ahead in 11 tests (17%)
  • Quadro P500 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
  • there's a draw in 52 tests (80%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.25 4.23
Recency 1 June 2012 5 January 2018
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 18 Watt

K3000M has a 0.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro P500, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 316.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K3000M and Quadro P500.


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 P500
Quadro P500

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 29 votes

Rate Quadro P500 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.