NVIDIA Quadro K3000M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M?

A: The Quadro M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4621, while the Quadro K3000M scores 4241. The M3000M leads by roughly 9% in aggregate performance.

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M3000M offers 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 79% higher than the Quadro K3000M's 89.60 GB/s. The M3000M also has double the VRAM capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB).

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The M3000M was released in August 2015, while the K3000M came out in May 2012.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The M3000M packs 5,200 million transistors, while the K3000M has 3,540 million. The M3000M's chip is also larger at 398 mm² versus 294 mm².

Q: What API level does each GPU support for DirectX?

A: The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: 1.4 for M3000M and 1.2.175 for K3000M.

Q: Which GPU wins in the only head-to-head benchmark recorded?

A: The Quadro M3000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 16646 versus 4241, a 292.5% advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a one-sided comparison in the recorded benchmarks. The Quadro M3000M wins the only head-to-head test available, which is Geekbench OpenCL. That score reflects general-purpose compute workloads rather than pure gaming or professional rendering tasks.

For the M3000M, its strength lies in compute throughput. The FP32 rating of 1.892 TFLOPS is 2.5 times the K3000M's 753.4 GFLOPS. This advantage shows up in OpenCL workloads, where the M3000M's 16646 score dwarfs the K3000M's 4241. The M3000M also has a full suite of Passmark scores available, including G3D at 5543 and GPU compute at 2139, indicating broad general performance coverage in the database.

The K3000M has no recorded wins in the head-to-head section. Its only benchmark result is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 4241, which is substantially lower. However, it does sit in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, close to the M3000M's 27th percentile. The K3000M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (0.6% faster) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (1% faster), placing it in similar company to the M3000M's competition, which includes the GeForce GTX 970M (0.1% faster) and AMD Radeon R5 M320 (0.8% faster).

For users prioritizing compute performance with modern API support, the M3000M is the clear choice. The K3000M remains competitive only in legacy scenarios where its lower power footprint and older architecture are sufficient, but the benchmark evidence does not favor it in any measured test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro M3000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 chip, while the Quadro K3000M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip.

Both are built on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the M3000M packs significantly more transistors: 5,200 million versus 3,540 million. The die size also grows from 294 mm² on Kepler to 398 mm² on Maxwell 2.0. Transistor density improves modestly from 12.0M per mm² to 13.1M per mm².

The M3000M doubles the shading unit count to 1024 from 576, and increases texture mapping units from 48 to 64. Both retain 32 ROPs. This configuration directly explains the M3000M's higher pixel rate (29.57 GPixel/s vs 7.848 GPixel/s) and texture rate (59.14 GTexel/s vs 31.39 GTexel/s).

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The M3000M runs at a base clock of 823 MHz with a boost of 924 MHz. The K3000M has a fixed clock of 654 MHz with no boost headroom. Memory clocks follow the same pattern: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the M3000M versus 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) on the K3000M.

API support reflects the generational gap. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The bus interface also differs. The M3000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K3000M uses MXM-B (3.0). Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data.

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | NVIDIA Quadro K3000M |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | GM204 | GK104 |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) |

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

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 294 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 823 MHz | 654 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 924 MHz | 654 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective | 700 MHz, 2.8 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 89.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 576 |

| TMUs | 64 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.57 GPixel/s | 7.848 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 59.14 GTexel/s | 31.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.892 TFLOPS | 753.4 GFLOPS |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2012-05-31 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | Quadro Maxwell-M |

Both GPUs share the same TDP (75 W), slot width (MXM Module), power connector requirement (None), display outputs (Portable Device Dependent), and production status (End-of-life). Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark result for this pair: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the Quadro M3000M scores 16646, while the Quadro K3000M scores 4241. The M3000M wins with a 292.5% delta, meaning it delivers nearly four times the OpenCL compute performance.

This result is not surprising given the underlying specifications. The M3000M has 1024 shading units versus 576, a base clock of 823 MHz versus 654 MHz, and an FP32 throughput of 1.892 TFLOPS versus 753.4 GFLOPS. The memory subsystem also favors the M3000M: 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth versus 89.60 GB/s, with 4 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB.

Looking beyond the head-to-head, the M3000M's broader benchmark suite shows strong results. Its Passmark G3D score of 5543 and G2D score of 402 indicate solid general graphics performance. The GPU compute score of 2139 and DirectX 11 score of 42 further confirm its compute orientation. The K3000M has no Passmark results recorded, so the comparison relies entirely on the single OpenCL test.

The M3000M's average benchmark score of 4621 places it at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, just behind the GeForce GTX 970M (4628, 0.1% faster) and AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4657, 0.8% faster). It sits ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, 1% slower). The K3000M's average of 4241 places it at the 25th percentile, near the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, 0.6% faster), GeForce GTX 460M (4282, 1% faster), and AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 1.3% faster), while leading the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, 1.2% slower).

The percentile gap between the two is small, but the raw compute margin is enormous. In practical terms, the M3000M is the superior part for OpenCL workloads, with the K3000M offering only legacy compatibility at a much lower performance ceiling. The recorded data does not show any test where the K3000M wins.