Quadro K3000M vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Place in the ranking	481	680
Place by popularity	34	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	1.72
Power efficiency	41.36	3.89
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Vega	GK104
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	7 January 2020 (4 years ago)	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$155

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 cores	512	576
Core clock speed	no data	654 MHz
Boost clock speed	2100 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	31.39
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.7534 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	32
TMUs	no data	48

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 size	no data	large
Interface	no data	MXM-B (3.0)

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 type	no data	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	no data	2 GB
Memory bus width	no data	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	700 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	89.6 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 Connectors

no data

No 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.

DirectX	12_1	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.2
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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 9.05
+112%

K3000M 4.26

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 5891
+143%

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) 22428
+88.4%

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:

900p	70−75 +112%	33 −112%
Full HD	22 −50%	33 +50%
1440p	16 +129%	7−8 −129%
4K	9 +125%	4−5 −125%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	4.70
1440p	no data	22.14
4K	no data	38.75

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

19
+171%

7−8

−171%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +83.3%	12−14 −83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	20 +400%	4−5 −400%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +180%	10−11 −180%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +100%	7−8 −100%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +117%	12−14 −117%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +135%	24−27 −135%
Hitman 3	15 +50%	10−11 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +82.1%	27−30 −82.1%
Metro Exodus	35 +289%	9−10 −289%
Red Dead Redemption 2	33 +200%	10−12 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +125%	16−18 −125%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +36.4%	40−45 −36.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +83.3%	12−14 −83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16 +300%	4−5 −300%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +180%	10−11 −180%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +117%	12−14 −117%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +135%	24−27 −135%
Hitman 3	15 +50%	10−11 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +82.1%	27−30 −82.1%
Metro Exodus	25 +178%	9−10 −178%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +127%	10−12 −127%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	27 +68.8%	16−18 −68.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +56.3%	16−18 −56.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +36.4%	40−45 −36.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21−24 +83.3%	12−14 −83.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14 +250%	4−5 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +111%	9−10 −111%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +133%	9−10 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +135%	24−27 −135%
Hitman 3	14 +40%	10−11 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24 −16.7%	27−30 +16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	23 +43.8%	16−18 −43.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 −14.3%	16−18 +14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12 −267%	40−45 +267%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21
+90.9%

10−12

−90.9%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +125%	8−9 −125%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	11 +120%	5−6 −120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +550%	6−7 −550%
Hitman 3	10 +11.1%	9−10 −11.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20 +100%	10−11 −100%
Metro Exodus	17	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +129%	7−8 −129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	59 +127%	24−27 −127%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

13
+62.5%

8−9

−62.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Hitman 3	5−6	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
Metro Exodus	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9 +125%	4−5 −125%
Watch Dogs: Legion	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+80%

5−6

−80%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and K3000M compete in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 112% faster in 900p
K3000M is 50% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 129% faster in 1440p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 125% 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 RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 3600% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K3000M is 267% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 62 tests (95%)
K3000M is ahead in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.05	4.26
Recency	7 January 2020	1 June 2012
Chip lithography	7 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	75 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 112.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook graphics 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.