Quadro 3000M vs Radeon R7 260

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 260 with Quadro 3000M, including specs and performance data.

R7 260
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 115 Watt
7.50
+191%

R7 260 outperforms 3000M by a whopping 191% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking531821
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.740.24
Power efficiency5.412.36
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameBonaireGF104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date17 December 2013 (11 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 $398.96

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 260 has 1458% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.

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 cores768240
Core clock speedno data450 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,080 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate48.0018.00
Floating-point processing power1.536 TFLOPS0.432 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs4840

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
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length170 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 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 width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz625 MHz
Memory bandwidth104 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.1
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. 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.

R7 260 7.50
+191%
Quadro 3000M 2.58

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.

R7 260 2891
+191%
Quadro 3000M 995

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:

Full HD140−150
+175%
51
−175%

Cost per frame, $

1080p0.787.82

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how R7 260 and Quadro 3000M compete in popular games:

  • R7 260 is 175% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.50 2.58
Recency 17 December 2013 22 February 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 75 Watt

R7 260 has a 190.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 3000M, on the other hand, has 53.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 260 is a desktop card while Quadro 3000M 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 R7 260
Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
Quadro 3000M

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 50 votes

Rate Radeon R7 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 49 votes

Rate Quadro 3000M 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.