NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro K3000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from NVIDIA, but they target completely different workloads. The K3000M is a Kepler-era professional GPU, while the GTX 970M is a Maxwell 2.0 consumer gaming chip. Benchmark data shows a massive performance gulf between them: in Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970M scores 18946 versus the K3000M’s 4241, a 77.6% deficit for the Quadro. The GTX 970M also sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the K3000M sits at the 25th percentile—a narrower gap than the raw scores suggest, but the GTX 970M still wins the only head-to-head benchmark available.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The GeForce GTX 970M is dramatically faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 18946 compared to the Quadro K3000M’s 4241, making the GTX 970M 77.6% ahead of the K3000M.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these two GPUs?

A: The Quadro K3000M is built on Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, while the GeForce GTX 970M uses Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what type?

A: The K3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 120.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has better DirectX API support?

A: The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K3000M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). For Vulkan, the GTX 970M supports version 1.4, whereas the K3000M supports 1.2.175.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The GTX 970M’s GM204 chip contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The K3000M’s GK104 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The GTX 970M has a higher transistor density at 13.1M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm².

Q: Are both cards available in the same form factor?

A: Yes, both use MXM Module slot width and MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, with no power connectors required. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for both.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970M wins every measurable benchmark category in the data. In Geekbench OpenCL, the only shared test, it beats the K3000M by 77.6%. The GTX 970M also has additional benchmark results that the K3000M lacks entirely, including Geekbench Vulkan at 18292, Passmark G3D at 5704, Passmark GPU Compute at 2289, and Passmark DirectX 9 at 99. The K3000M has no wins—its sole benchmark score of 4241 is its only data point.

For raw compute throughput, the GTX 970M delivers 2.657 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the K3000M manages 753.4 GFLOPS. That is more than a 3.5x advantage for the GTX 970M. Pixel fill rate also favors the GTX 970M at 49.82 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 83.04 GTexel/s versus 31.39 GTexel/s.

The K3000M’s only relative advantage is its lower transistor count and smaller die, which historically implies lower power draw—though the GTX 970M’s TDP is not listed in the data. For professional certification-specific features, the Quadro branding suggests ISV validation, but no benchmark data confirms any advantage.

Architecture Differences

The K3000M uses Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, while the GTX 970M uses Maxwell 2.0 with GM204. Both are 28 nm TSMC parts, but the transistor counts differ significantly: 3,540 million for GK104 versus 5,200 million for GM204. Die size also differs—294 mm² versus 398 mm²—resulting in transistor densities of 12.0M per mm² and 13.1M per mm² respectively.

The shading unit count jumps from 576 on the K3000M to 1280 on the GTX 970M. Texture mapping units increase from 48 to 80, and ROPs from 32 to 48. These are substantial architectural upgrades that explain the GTX 970M’s performance lead.

Memory architecture differs as well. The K3000M uses a 256-bit bus with 2 GB, while the GTX 970M uses a narrower 192-bit bus but packs 6 GB. Despite the narrower bus, the GTX 970M achieves higher bandwidth (120.3 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s) due to faster memory clocks: 5 Gbps effective versus 2.8 Gbps effective.

Clock speeds are also higher on the GTX 970M. Base clock is 924 MHz versus 654 MHz, and boost is 1038 MHz versus 654 MHz—the K3000M has no boost headroom. API support differs: the GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K3000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K3000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | GK104 | GM204 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 654 MHz | 924 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 654 MHz | 1038 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2.8 Gbps effective | 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.60 GB/s | 120.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 576 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 48 | 80 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.848 GPixel/s | 49.82 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.39 GTexel/s | 83.04 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 753.4 GFLOPS | 2.657 TFLOPS |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| TDP | 75 W | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2014-10-06 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | GeForce 10 Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 970M scores 18946, while the K3000M scores 4241. That is a delta of -77.6% for the K3000M, meaning the GTX 970M is roughly 4.5 times faster in this compute workload. This is the decisive single data point in the head-to-head table, and the GTX 970M wins it outright.

Beyond that shared test, the GTX 970M has a portfolio of additional benchmark results that the K3000M lacks. Geekbench Vulkan shows 18292, which is close to its OpenCL score and indicates strong compute performance across APIs. Passmark G3D at 5704 and Passmark GPU Compute at 2289 further reinforce the GTX 970M’s advantage. Passmark DirectX 9 at 99, DirectX 11 at 42, DirectX 10 at 28, and DirectX 12 at 24 show a typical regression for older APIs, but these are still results the K3000M cannot match—it has no Passmark data at all.

The GTX 970M’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (delta 0.2%), AMD Radeon R5 M320 at 4657 (delta -0.6%), AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB at 4657 (delta -0.6%), and AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (delta 1.1%). The K3000M’s nearest rivals include AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4268 (delta -0.6%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M at 4282 (delta -1%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at 4193 (delta 1.2%), and AMD FirePro W2100 at 4295 (delta -1.3%). These rival comparisons show the K3000M clustering around the 4200-4300 score range, while the GTX 970M sits near 4600-4700 in average score—though its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 472 is notably lower, suggesting different workload characteristics.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the superior GPU in every measured category. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 77.6%, offers 3.5x more FP32 throughput, 6x more memory capacity, and supports newer API versions. The GTX 970M also has a higher percentile ranking (27th versus 25th) and a higher average benchmark score (4628 versus 4241).

Who should pick the GTX 970M? Anyone prioritizing raw compute, gaming, or general-purpose graphics workloads. Its 6 GB GDDR5 frame buffer, 1280 shading units, and 2.657 TFLOPS make it suitable for demanding 3D applications, modern game titles, and compute tasks. The additional benchmark coverage—Vulkan, Passmark G3D, and DirectX variants—shows a well-rounded performer that handles diverse workloads.

Who should pick the Quadro K3000M? The data does not support any performance-based reason to choose it. It is slower in every measurable way, has less memory, lower bandwidth, fewer shaders, and older API support. The only potential justification is if a specific professional application requires Quadro-specific certification or driver validation, but no benchmark data in this dataset confirms any such advantage. The K3000M’s lower transistor count and die size might imply lower power consumption, but its TDP of 75 W is the only power figure listed, and the GTX 970M’s TDP is not provided for comparison.

For a practical builder, the GTX 970M is the obvious choice unless a legacy professional workload demands the Quadro name. The benchmark evidence is overwhelming, and the GTX 970M’s additional test results only reinforce its dominance. The K3000M remains a historical curiosity from the Kepler era, outclassed by its Maxwell successor across the board.