Quadro K3000M vs Quadro P2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P2000 with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P2000
2017
5 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
18.87
+343%

P2000 outperforms K3000M by a whopping 343% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking295680
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.551.72
Power efficiency17.243.89
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGP106GK104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$585 $155

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P2000 has 455% better value for money than K3000M.

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 cores1024576
Core clock speed1076 MHz654 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,400 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate94.7231.39
Floating-point processing power3.031 TFLOPS0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs4032
TMUs6448

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length201 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 amount5 GB2 GB
Memory bus width160 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1752 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth140.2 GB/s89.6 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo 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 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
CUDA6.1+

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.

Quadro P2000 18.87
+343%
K3000M 4.26

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.

Quadro P2000 7268
+342%
K3000M 1643

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.

Quadro P2000 8387
+246%
K3000M 2427

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.

Quadro P2000 32964
+177%
K3000M 11902

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.

Quadro P2000 22904
+445%
K3000M 4199

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:

900p140−150
+324%
33
−324%
Full HD56
+69.7%
33
−69.7%
1440p22
+450%
4−5
−450%
4K16
+433%
3−4
−433%

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.454.70
1440p26.5938.75
4K36.5651.67

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+250%
12−14
−250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+520%
10−11
−520%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+322%
9−10
−322%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%
Far Cry 5 42
+367%
9−10
−367%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+325%
12−14
−325%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+354%
24−27
−354%
Hitman 3 35−40
+270%
10−11
−270%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+229%
27−30
−229%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+622%
9−10
−622%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+364%
10−12
−364%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 77
+381%
16−18
−381%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+100%
40−45
−100%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+250%
12−14
−250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+520%
10−11
−520%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+322%
9−10
−322%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%
Far Cry 5 33
+267%
9−10
−267%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+325%
12−14
−325%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+354%
24−27
−354%
Hitman 3 35−40
+270%
10−11
−270%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+229%
27−30
−229%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+622%
9−10
−622%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+364%
10−12
−364%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+288%
16−18
−288%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+169%
16−18
−169%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+100%
40−45
−100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+250%
12−14
−250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+322%
9−10
−322%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+329%
7−8
−329%
Far Cry 5 26
+189%
9−10
−189%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+354%
24−27
−354%
Hitman 3 35−40
+270%
10−11
−270%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+229%
27−30
−229%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+288%
16−18
−288%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
+56.3%
16−18
−56.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+100%
40−45
−100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+364%
10−12
−364%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+350%
8−9
−350%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+383%
6−7
−383%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Far Cry 5 14
+180%
5−6
−180%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+1633%
6−7
−1633%
Hitman 3 21−24
+144%
9−10
−144%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+280%
10−11
−280%
Metro Exodus 35−40 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+375%
8−9
−375%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+331%
24−27
−331%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+288%
8−9
−288%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Hitman 3 14−16 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+9600%
1−2
−9600%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+550%
2−3
−550%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 7
+250%
2−3
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%

This is how Quadro P2000 and K3000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P2000 is 324% faster in 900p
  • Quadro P2000 is 70% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P2000 is 450% faster in 1440p
  • Quadro P2000 is 433% faster in 4K

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 9600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Quadro P2000 surpassed K3000M in all 65 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.87 4.26
Recency 6 February 2017 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 5 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 16 nm 28 nm

Quadro P2000 has a 343% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 150% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P2000 is a workstation card while Quadro K3000M 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 P2000
Quadro P2000
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
Quadro K3000M

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.


3.5 638 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 69 votes

Rate Quadro K3000M 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.