NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins this matchup, and it is not close. Benchmark results indicate a 13.4 percent advantage in Geekbench OpenCL, backed by a hardware lead that spans every measurable dimension: six times the shading units, eight times the render output units, and more than triple the memory bandwidth. The GeForce GT 635M's only practical edge is efficiency, drawing 35 W against the Quadro's 75 W in a chip designed for a completely different class of machine. For anyone choosing between these two on performance grounds, the K3000M is the clear pick; the GT 635M only makes sense where power draw is the overriding constraint.

The Verdict

The database records a single head-to-head result, Geekbench OpenCL, and it goes decisively to the Quadro K3000M: 4241 versus 3740, a 13.4 percent margin. That gap is consistent with the underlying specifications. The K3000M sits in the 25th percentile of all recorded GPUs, while the GT 635M falls to the 22nd percentile. Both are therefore low-tier parts by modern standards, but the Quadro is meaningfully the stronger of the two.

The K3000M's nearest rivals paint a telling picture: it trades blows with the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268 average, 0.6 percent ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, 1 percent ahead), the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 1.3 percent ahead), and even lands 1.2 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193). The GT 635M's rival cluster sits lower: the Quadro 3000M (3718), the GeForce GT 740M (3717), the GeForce 825M (3694), and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792), the last of which beats it by 1.4 percent. In short, the K3000M competes near entry-level dedicated GPUs of a later era, while the GT 635M competes near integrated graphics.

Verdict: choose the K3000M in every performance-driven scenario. Choose the GT 635M only where its lower thermal envelope matters more than compute throughput.

Architecture Differences

These chips belong to different NVIDIA eras. The K3000M is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK104 die on TSMC's 28 nm process. The GT 635M is a Fermi part, the GF108 die on a much older 40 nm TSMC process. The generational gap shows up everywhere in the silicon data.

The K3000M packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, a density of 12.0M transistors per mm². The GT 635M manages 585 million transistors across 116 mm² at 5.0M per mm². That is roughly six times the transistor budget for the Quadro, which translates directly into functional units: 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units, against the GT 635M's 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and just 4 ROPs.

Memory subsystems diverge just as sharply. The K3000M pairs 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus running at an effective 2.8 Gbps, yielding 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 635M also carries 2 GB, but of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus at an effective 1800 Mbps, for only 28.80 GB/s. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the K3000M lists Vulkan support, version 1.2.175.

Form factors differ by intent. The Quadro is an MXM Module on an MXM-B (3.0) interface, aimed at mobile workstations. The GT 635M is an IGP-class part on PCIe 2.0 x16. Both are end-of-life, released within weeks of each other in 2012: the GT 635M on March 21, the K3000M on May 31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one head-to-head test exists in the recorded data, but it is unambiguous.

Geekbench OpenCL: Quadro K3000M 4241, GT 635M 3740. The K3000M wins by 13.4 percent. For a compute-oriented OpenCL workload, that margin reflects the raw shader and bandwidth disparity: 753.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput against 182.4 GFLOPS, and 89.60 GB/s of memory bandwidth against 28.80 GB/s. The GT 635M simply cannot feed its 96 shading units the way the Quadro feeds its 576.

The theoretical rates reinforce the same story. The K3000M delivers 7.848 GPixel/s of pixel fill and 31.39 GTexel/s of texture fill; the GT 635M manages 1.900 GPixel/s and 7.600 GTexel/s respectively. That is roughly four times the pixel throughput and four times the texture throughput, a gap wider than the OpenCL score suggests, indicating the GT 635M punches slightly above its specification weight in this particular compute test while still losing comfortably.

Context from each card's rival set confirms the ordering. The K3000M's 4241 average sits within about one percent of the Vega 3, GTX 460M, and FirePro W2100, and ahead of the GTX 1050 Ti. The GT 635M's 3740 average is in the same band as the Quadro 3000M, GT 740M, GeForce 825M, and Intel's UHD Graphics 710. Final tally: one benchmark, one win for the K3000M, none for the GT 635M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall?

A: The Quadro K3000M. It wins the recorded Geekbench OpenCL test 4241 to 3740, a 13.4 percent advantage, and leads in every theoretical metric from shader count to memory bandwidth.

Q: How much more power does the Quadro draw?

A: The K3000M has a TDP of 75 W versus 35 W for the GT 635M. Buyers targeting thin or thermally limited machines should weigh that difference seriously.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. Only the K3000M lists Vulkan support, at version 1.2.175; no Vulkan version is recorded for the GT 635M.

Q: How do they compare in memory?

A: Both have 2 GB, but the K3000M uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 635M uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus for 28.80 GB/s, less than a third of the Quadro's figure.

Q: Where does each card rank against all GPUs?

A: The K3000M sits in the 25th percentile of recorded GPUs; the GT 635M in the 22nd. Both are low-tier by current standards.

Q: Are either of these still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The GT 635M shipped March 21, 2012, and the K3000M followed on May 31, 2012.

Where Each One Wins

Quadro K3000M wins:

• OpenCL and general compute workloads, by 13.4 percent in the recorded benchmark
• Any workload dependent on memory bandwidth, with 89.60 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s
• Texture-heavy rendering, with 31.39 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GTexel/s
• Pixel throughput scenarios, with 7.848 GPixel/s versus 1.900 GPixel/s
• Environments needing Vulkan support, which the GT 635M does not list
• MXM-based mobile workstation platforms, its native form factor

GeForce GT 635M wins:

• Power-constrained designs, at 35 W versus 75 W
• PCIe-based laptop implementations, since it uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface rather than MXM-B (3.0)
• Nothing on raw performance; the database records zero benchmark wins for it in this pairing

Specification Differences

| Field | Quadro K3000M | GeForce GT 635M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GK104 | GF108 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Fermi |

| Generation | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) | GeForce 600M |

| Process node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 585 million |

| Die size | 294 mm² | 116 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.0M / mm² | 5.0M / mm² |

| Core clock | 654 MHz base and boost | Not recorded |

| Memory clock | 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Bus width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Bandwidth | 89.60 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading units | 576 | 96 |

| TMUs | 48 | 16 |

| ROPs | 32 | 4 |

| Pixel rate | 7.848 GPixel/s | 1.900 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 31.39 GTexel/s | 7.600 GTexel/s |

| FP32 throughput | 753.4 GFLOPS | 182.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 35 W |

| Slot width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | Not listed |

| Release date | May 31, 2012 | March 21, 2012 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | GeForce 500M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | GeForce 700M |

| Percentile vs all GPUs | 25 | 22 |

| Avg benchmark score | 4241 | 3740 |

Both share the same manufacturer, foundry, 2 GB memory capacity, absent power connectors, DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support, end-of-life status, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Everywhere else, the Quadro K3000M holds the advantage, and the recorded data supports it as the superior performer of the two.