Quadro K3000M vs Radeon R9 290X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290X with Quadro K3000M, including specs and performance data.

R9 290X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
19.31
+351%

R9 290X outperforms K3000M by a whopping 351% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking291681
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.861.79
Power efficiency4.583.93
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameHawaiiGK104
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date24 October 2013 (11 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 $155

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 290X has 172% 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 cores2816576
Core clock speedno data654 MHz
Boost clock speed947 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,200 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate176.031.39
Floating-point processing power5.632 TFLOPS0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs17648

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)
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-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 amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth320 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 Connectors2x 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.

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data
Optimus-+

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
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan++
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.

R9 290X 19.31
+351%
K3000M 4.28

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.

R9 290X 7425
+351%
K3000M 1646

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.

R9 290X 16168
+566%
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.

R9 290X 37284
+213%
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:

900p140−150
+324%
33
−324%
Full HD85
+158%
33
−158%
4K52
+420%
10−12
−420%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.46
−37.5%
4.70
+37.5%
4K10.56
+46.8%
15.50
−46.8%
  • K3000M has 38% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • R9 290X has 47% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+322%
9−10
−322%
Elden Ring 60−65
+510%
10−11
−510%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+408%
12−14
−408%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+322%
9−10
−322%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+350%
18−20
−350%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+478%
9−10
−478%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+221%
14−16
−221%
Valorant 75−80
+875%
8−9
−875%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+408%
12−14
−408%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+322%
9−10
−322%
Dota 2 45
+246%
12−14
−246%
Elden Ring 60−65
+510%
10−11
−510%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+195%
21−24
−195%
Fortnite 100−110
+312%
24−27
−312%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+350%
18−20
−350%
Grand Theft Auto V 67
+415%
12−14
−415%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+478%
9−10
−478%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+254%
35−40
−254%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+221%
14−16
−221%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+329%
14−16
−329%
Valorant 75−80
+875%
8−9
−875%
World of Tanks 280
+289%
70−75
−289%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+408%
12−14
−408%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+183%
12−14
−183%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+322%
9−10
−322%
Dota 2 136
+946%
12−14
−946%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+195%
21−24
−195%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+350%
18−20
−350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+254%
35−40
−254%
Valorant 75−80
+875%
8−9
−875%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Elden Ring 30−35
+700%
4−5
−700%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+483%
27−30
−483%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
World of Tanks 130−140
+340%
30−33
−340%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+550%
6−7
−550%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+467%
9−10
−467%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+880%
5−6
−880%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+2100%
2−3
−2100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+420%
5−6
−420%
Valorant 50−55
+317%
12−14
−317%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Dota 2 52
+225%
16−18
−225%
Elden Ring 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Grand Theft Auto V 52
+225%
16−18
−225%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+383%
12−14
−383%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 52
+225%
16−18
−225%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Dota 2 84
+425%
16−18
−425%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+400%
5−6
−400%
Fortnite 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Valorant 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%

This is how R9 290X and K3000M compete in popular games:

  • R9 290X is 324% faster in 900p
  • R9 290X is 158% faster in 1080p
  • R9 290X is 420% faster in 4K

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 290X is 2100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 290X surpassed K3000M in all 60 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.31 4.28
Recency 24 October 2013 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 75 Watt

R9 290X has a 351.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

K3000M, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290X 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 R9 290X
Radeon R9 290X
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
Quadro K3000M

Other comparisons

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.


4.1 456 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290X 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.