Quadro K3000M vs Radeon HD 7870

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 7870 with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.

HD 7870
2012
2 GB GDDR5, 175 Watt
12.02
+183%

HD 7870 outperforms K3000M by a whopping 183% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking403676
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.911.51
Power efficiency4.793.95
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code namePitcairnGK104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date5 March 2012 (12 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$349 $155

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD 7870 has 93% 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 cores1280576
Core clock speed1000 MHz654 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate80.0031.39
Floating-point processing power2.56 TFLOPS0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs8048

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)
Length241 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno 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 amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1200 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth153.6 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

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_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
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.

HD 7870 12.02
+183%
K3000M 4.25

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.

HD 7870 4637
+183%
K3000M 1640

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.

HD 7870 6194
+155%
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.

HD 7870 21348
+79.4%
K3000M 11902

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:

900p84
+155%
33
−155%
Full HD68
+94.3%
35
−94.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.134.43

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+280%
10−11
−280%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+175%
12−14
−175%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+208%
24−27
−208%
Hitman 3 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+129%
27−30
−129%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+344%
9−10
−344%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+200%
10−12
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+56.8%
40−45
−56.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+280%
10−11
−280%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+175%
12−14
−175%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+208%
24−27
−208%
Hitman 3 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+129%
27−30
−129%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+344%
9−10
−344%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+200%
10−12
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+87.5%
16−18
−87.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+56.8%
40−45
−56.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+167%
9−10
−167%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+211%
9−10
−211%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+208%
24−27
−208%
Hitman 3 21−24
+130%
10−11
−130%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+129%
27−30
−129%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+144%
16−18
−144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+25%
16−18
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+56.8%
40−45
−56.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+200%
10−12
−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+188%
8−9
−188%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+200%
6−7
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+867%
6−7
−867%
Hitman 3 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+150%
10−11
−150%
Metro Exodus 18−20 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+188%
24−27
−188%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+5500%
1−2
−5500%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%

This is how HD 7870 and K3000M compete in popular games:

  • HD 7870 is 155% faster in 900p
  • HD 7870 is 94% 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 HD 7870 is 5500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, HD 7870 surpassed K3000M in all 65 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.02 4.25
Recency 5 March 2012 1 June 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 175 Watt 75 Watt

HD 7870 has a 182.8% higher aggregate performance score.

K3000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 7870 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7870 is a desktop 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.


AMD Radeon HD 7870
Radeon HD 7870
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.


3.7 640 votes

Rate Radeon HD 7870 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.