NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between these two Kepler-era NVIDIA parts, and the result is unambiguous. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 scores 4545, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241. The GTX 650 wins this head-to-head matchup with a delta of -6.7% relative to the Quadro, meaning the Quadro trails by roughly 7% in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

That single result places the GTX 650 ahead, but the gap is not overwhelming. A 6.7% difference in OpenCL performance is modest in real-world terms; it is the kind of margin that can flip depending on driver optimization, thermal state, or specific compute kernels. Still, the recorded data shows one winner and one loser, with no ambiguity about which card posts the higher score.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GTX 650 also shows a higher average score across all its recorded tests. Its average benchmark score is 3823, which includes results from Geekbench Metal (2400), Geekbench OpenCL (4545), and Geekbench Vulkan (4524). The Quadro K3000M has only one recorded benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL result of 4241, which also serves as its average score. This means the GTX 650's OpenCL result is not just a single outlier; it aligns with its Vulkan score of 4524, suggesting consistent compute performance across different API frontends.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The Quadro K3000M sits at the 25th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 650 sits at the 22nd percentile. These are close positions, indicating both cards occupy a similar tier in the overall performance distribution. The GTX 650's lower percentile despite its higher raw OpenCL score reflects the fact that its average is dragged down by the Metal benchmark result, which is considerably lower than its OpenCL and Vulkan scores.

For context, the nearest rivals in the database further illustrate where these cards sit. The Quadro K3000M's closest competitors include the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (avg score 4268, delta -0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (avg 4282, delta -1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (avg 4193, delta 1.2%), and the AMD FirePro W2100 (avg 4295, delta -1.3%). The Quadro is essentially bracketed by these cards within a margin of about 1.3%, meaning it performs nearly identically to a range of older and newer parts.

The GTX 650's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 (avg 3834, delta -0.3%), the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (avg 3792, delta 0.8%), the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (avg 3883, delta -1.5%), and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (avg 3898, delta -1.9%). Here too, the margins are tight, with the GTX 650 hovering within roughly 2% of its nearest competitors.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 650 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded, but that is not the whole picture. The GTX 650's OpenCL score of 4545 is 6.7% higher than the Quadro's 4241, and its Vulkan score of 4524 is nearly identical to its OpenCL result. This suggests the GTX 650 has solid, consistent compute performance across multiple modern API interfaces. For users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the GTX 650 is the stronger choice based on the recorded data.

The Quadro K3000M, despite losing the head-to-head, is not without its own strengths. Its single recorded OpenCL score of 4241 places it within 1.3% of the AMD FirePro W2100 and within 1% of the GeForce GTX 460M, both of which are respectable mid-range parts. The Quadro's 25th percentile ranking is actually one point higher than the GTX 650's 22nd percentile, which reflects the fact that the Quadro has no low-scoring Metal result dragging down its average. If a workload relies solely on OpenCL, the Quadro is only 6.7% behind the GTX 650, a margin that may be acceptable depending on other factors like driver stability or feature support.

The GTX 650's advantage is clearest in compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 4545 is higher than every nearest rival listed for the Quadro, including the FirePro W2100 (4295), the GTX 460M (4282), and the Radeon Vega 3 (4268). The GTX 650 also outperforms its own nearest rivals by a small margin, sitting above the Quadro 2000 (3898) and the Radeon R5 Graphics (3883) by roughly 1.5% to 1.9%.

Where the Quadro might be preferable is in contexts where the GTX 650's Metal result is relevant. The GTX 650's Metal score of 2400 is substantially lower than its OpenCL and Vulkan scores, indicating that performance varies significantly depending on the API. The Quadro has no recorded Metal benchmark, so it is impossible to say whether it would perform better or worse in that specific test. However, the Quadro's consistent single-score profile means there is no weak point in its recorded data.

For gaming and general consumer workloads, the GTX 650 is the better bet. Its Vulkan score of 4524 is strong, and Vulkan is increasingly relevant for modern games and emulators. The GTX 650 also has a higher pixel rate (8.464 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s) and a higher texture rate (33.86 GTexel/s versus 31.39 GTexel/s), which are metrics that matter for rasterization-heavy tasks.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 as the faster card overall. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, posts a higher OpenCL score by 6.7%, and shows strong Vulkan performance as well. Its average benchmark score of 3823 is lower than the Quadro's 4241, but that is solely because the GTX 650's Metal result of 2400 pulls the average down. If Metal is not part of the workload, the GTX 650 is clearly the superior compute part.

The Quadro K3000M, meanwhile, is best understood as a close competitor that falls just short in raw performance. Its OpenCL score of 4241 is respectable and places it within a few percentage points of several other mid-range cards, but it does not match the GTX 650's 4545. The Quadro's 25th percentile ranking is marginally better than the GTX 650's 22nd, but that is a statistical artifact of the GTX 650 having a weak Metal result rather than evidence of overall superiority.

For anyone choosing between these two, the GTX 650 is the pick for compute workloads, particularly those using OpenCL or Vulkan. The Quadro K3000M could be considered if the application environment is one where the GTX 650's Metal performance would be a liability, but the recorded data offers no evidence that the Quadro performs better in such scenarios. The GTX 650 also has a higher FP32 throughput (812.5 GFLOPS versus 753.4 GFLOPS) and higher pixel and texture rates, reinforcing its lead in general-purpose graphics work.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4545, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's 4241, a margin of 6.7%.

Q: How does the Quadro K3000M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K3000M is within 1.3% of the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295), within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282), and within 0.6% of the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268). It sits just ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) by 1.2%.

Q: What is the GTX 650's best benchmark result?

A: The GTX 650's highest recorded score is 4545 in Geekbench OpenCL. Its Vulkan score is nearly identical at 4524, while its Metal score is significantly lower at 2400.

Q: Does the Quadro K3000M have a higher average benchmark score than the GTX 650?

A: Yes. The Quadro's average score is 4241, while the GTX 650's average is 3823. However, this is because the GTX 650's Metal result of 2400 drags its average down; its OpenCL and Vulkan scores are both above the Quadro's average.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 has a higher pixel rate at 8.464 GPixel/s, compared to the Quadro K3000M's 7.848 GPixel/s.

Q: How do their percentile rankings compare?

A: The Quadro K3000M is at the 25th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 650 is at the 22nd percentile. The difference is small and reflects the GTX 650's weaker Metal result rather than a fundamental performance gap.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture and use a 28 nm process node from TSMC, but they are distinct chips with different configurations. The Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip, which packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The GTX 650 uses the GK106 chip, with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. The GK104 is the larger, more complex chip, which explains the Quadro's higher transistor count and transistor density of 12.0M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm² for the GK106.

The Quadro K3000M is part of the Quadro Kepler-M generation, while the GTX 650 belongs to the GeForce 600 generation. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M, and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The GTX 650's predecessor is the GeForce 500 series, and its successor is the GeForce 700 series. Both cards are end-of-life in production status.

The two chips also differ in their compute resources. The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 650 has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer units, the GTX 650 achieves higher pixel and texture rates because of its higher operating clocks, which are not fully recorded in the database for the GTX 650 (base and boost clocks are listed as null). The GTX 650's memory clock is recorded as 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, while the Quadro's memory clock is 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores, as those features did not exist in this era of NVIDIA hardware.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several key specification fields. Memory capacity is one of the most visible differences: the Quadro K3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 650 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. The memory bus width also differs, with the Quadro using a 256-bit interface and the GTX 650 using a 128-bit interface. Despite the narrower bus, the GTX 650's higher memory clock (5 Gbps effective versus 2.8 Gbps) narrows the bandwidth gap: the Quadro delivers 89.60 GB/s, while the GTX 650 delivers 80.00 GB/s.

The GTX 650 has a lower TDP at 65 W, compared to the Quadro's 75 W. The GTX 650 also requires a 6-pin power connector and suggests a 250 W power supply, while the Quadro uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors listed. The bus interface differs as well: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), while the GTX 650 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Physical specifications also diverge. The GTX 650 is a single-slot card with a length of 147 mm (5.8 inches), while the Quadro is an MXM module, meaning it is designed for laptop or mobile use. Display outputs differ too: the Quadro lists "Portable Device Dependent" outputs, while the GTX 650 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

The release dates are separated by roughly 18 months: the Quadro K3000M launched on 2012-05-31, while the GTX 650 launched on 2013-11-26. Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP in the database. The GTX 650's FP32 throughput is higher at 812.5 GFLOPS, versus 753.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro, which is consistent with its benchmark advantage.