NVIDIA Quadro 3000M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are two mobile workstation GPUs separated by roughly a generation, and the recorded data shows a clear pecking order: the Kepler-based K3000M sits in the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Fermi-based 3000M sits at the 22nd percentile. Both are end-of-life MXM modules built by NVIDIA on TSMC silicon, both carry a 75 W TDP, and both pair 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus. The difference is what sits behind that memory: an entirely different generation of GPU architecture, and a measurable performance gap in the one benchmark the two share.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head result between these two Quadros, and it favors the newer card decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K3000M scored 4241 against the Quadro 3000M's 3718, a 14.1 percent margin for the Kepler part. That is a significant gap for cards that share the same TDP, the same memory capacity, and the same bus width. The K3000M is not just slightly ahead; it delivers roughly one-seventh more throughput in general GPU compute while drawing from the same 75 W envelope.

Context from each card's rival set reinforces the gap. The K3000M's average benchmark score of 4241 lands it in a cluster with the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, 0.6 percent ahead of the K3000M), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, 1 percent ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, 1.2 percent behind), and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 1.3 percent ahead). In other words, the K3000M trades blows with a mixed field of integrated and entry-level discrete parts, sitting within about a percent and a half of all four rivals in either direction.

The Quadro 3000M occupies a lower neighborhood. Its average score of 3718 puts it alongside the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (3717, a dead heat at 0 percent delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M (3740, 0.6 percent ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3694, 0.6 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, 1.9 percent behind). None of the 3000M's nearest rivals overlap with the K3000M's rival set, which is itself a signal that the database places these two Quadros in distinct performance bands. The head-to-head record is one win for the K3000M and zero for the 3000M.

Where Each One Wins

On the recorded evidence, the Quadro K3000M wins everywhere a measurement exists. Its 14.1 percent Geekbench OpenCL advantage translates directly into better OpenCL compute throughput for workstation applications that dispatch general-purpose GPU workloads. The raw spec sheet suggests the same story in fixed-function throughput: the K3000M delivers 7.848 GPixel/s of pixel fill versus 4.500 GPixel/s for the 3000M, and 31.39 GTexel/s of texture fill versus 18.00 GTexel/s. That is a pixel-rate advantage of well over 70 percent and a texture-rate advantage of nearly the same magnitude, gaps even larger than the compute benchmark indicates.

FP32 shader throughput tells the same story: 753.4 GFLOPS for the K3000M versus 432.0 GFLOPS for the 3000M, close to a 75 percent advantage in peak single-precision floating point. Memory bandwidth also tilts toward the Kepler card, 89.60 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s, a difference driven by faster GDDR5 running at 2.8 Gbps effective against 2.5 Gbps effective on the same 256-bit bus.

The 3000M's honest claim is not a win in any measured category but a different market position: it is the older card, released 2011-02-21 versus the K3000M's 2012-05-31, and it belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M generation that the Kepler-M line directly succeeded. For a system already built around the Fermi generation, it remains the period-correct part, and its percentile placement, 22nd against the K3000M's 25th, shows the two are at least in adjacent bands of the overall database distribution rather than different classes of hardware.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these cards is the heart of the comparison. The Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip, a Fermi-architecture part fabricated on TSMC's 40 nm process, packing 1,950 million transistors onto a 332 mm² die for a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip, a Kepler-architecture part on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 3,540 million transistors on a smaller 294 mm² die. The density figure more than doubles to 12.0M per mm².

That density advantage is what lets the K3000M field far more hardware in less silicon. It carries 576 shading units against the 3000M's 240, and 48 texture mapping units against 40. Raster output pipelines are equal at 32 on both cards, which explains why the pixel-rate gap, while large, is proportionally smaller than the shader-count gap: fill rate scales with clock and ROP count, and the K3000M's 654 MHz core clock is paired with the same 32 ROPs. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores; those features postdate both generations by a wide margin.

The feature-set differences extend to software. The K3000M reports Vulkan 1.2.175 support, while the 3000M shows no Vulkan entry at all. Both report DirectX 12 (11_0) feature level and OpenGL 4.6 in the database. The generational lineage also differs: the 3000M succeeded the Quadro FX Mobile line and was itself succeeded by Quadro Kepler-M, while the K3000M came after Quadro Fermi-M and gave way to Quadro Maxwell-M.

Specification Differences

The specification table splits cleanly into what is shared and what is not. Shared: 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 256-bit bus, a 75 W TDP, MXM module slot width, no power connectors, the MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, portable-device-dependent display outputs, end-of-life production status, and TSMC as foundry.

The differences:

• Chip and architecture: GK104 (Kepler) on the K3000M versus GF104 (Fermi) on the 3000M.
• Process node: 28 nm versus 40 nm.
• Transistors: 3,540 million versus 1,950 million.
• Die size: 294 mm² versus 332 mm², and transistor density of 12.0M/mm² versus 5.9M/mm².
• Shading units: 576 versus 240.
• Texture units: 48 versus 40.
• Core clock: the K3000M lists a 654 MHz base and boost clock; the 3000M lists none in the database.
• Memory clock: 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) versus 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), producing 89.60 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth.
• Fill rates and compute: 7.848 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s, 31.39 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s, and 753.4 GFLOPS FP32 versus 432.0 GFLOPS.
• API support: Vulkan 1.2.175 present on the K3000M only.
• Release date: 2012-05-31 versus 2011-02-21.

ROPs, memory size, memory type, bus width, TDP, and the bus interface are identical, which makes the Kepler card's superiority purely a matter of architecture and clocking rather than a larger configuration on paper.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in benchmarks?

A: The Quadro K3000M. It won the only head-to-head test in the database, Geekbench OpenCL, 4241 to 3718, a 14.1 percent margin. It also holds large spec-sheet leads in pixel fill (7.848 versus 4.500 GPixel/s), texture fill (31.39 versus 18.00 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (753.4 versus 432.0 GFLOPS).

Q: How do the two compare against other GPUs in the database?

A: The K3000M sits in the 25th percentile versus the 22nd percentile for the 3000M. The K3000M's score of 4241 is within roughly 1.3 percent of the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193), and AMD FirePro W2100 (4295). The 3000M's 3718 is similarly close to the GeForce GT 740M (3717), GT 635M (3740), GeForce 825M (3694), and Radeon HD 6770 (3649).

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Capacity, type, and bus width are identical: 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit interface. Bandwidth differs because of memory clocks. The K3000M runs its memory at 700 MHz, 2.8 Gbps effective, for 89.60 GB/s, while the 3000M runs 625 MHz, 2.5 Gbps effective, for 80.00 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements of each card?

A: Both are 75 W TDP MXM modules with no external power connectors, using the MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. Despite identical power envelopes, the K3000M delivers substantially more performance per watt on the recorded data.

Q: Which API features does each card support?

A: Both list DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The K3000M additionally lists Vulkan 1.2.175; the 3000M has no Vulkan entry in the database. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores.

Q: What silicon is each card built on?

A: Both were fabricated by TSMC. The K3000M uses the GK104 Kepler chip on a 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The 3000M uses the GF104 Fermi chip on a 40 nm process with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, meaning the Kepler part fits nearly twice the transistors into a smaller piece of silicon.