NVIDIA Quadro K3000M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between the two Quadro generations. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 takes the only recorded head-to-head win, edging out the K3000M in the Geekbench OpenCL test by a slim 0.2% margin. That result alone decides the win count: 1 for the P400, 0 for the K3000M.

For the P400, the practical interpretation is that it delivers slightly better raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads despite its much smaller physical footprint. This makes it the more relevant choice for modern software that leverages OpenCL acceleration, especially given that it also carries a Vulkan benchmark score of 5119, something the K3000M lacks entirely.

The K3000M, by contrast, has no benchmark category where it comes out ahead. Its single recorded OpenCL score of 4241 trails the P400's 4249. However, the K3000M's profile suggests it was built for a different era of mobile workstations. Its MXM form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs mean it was never intended to sit in a desktop tower; it lived inside laptops.

When looking at the broader percentile rankings, the P400 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, while the K3000M sits at the 25th. That two-point gap is consistent with the small performance delta seen in the direct comparison. Neither card is a performance monster by today's standards, but the P400 is the newer, more efficient design.

The real split here is not about which card wins, it is about which platform you are targeting. The P400 is a single-slot desktop card with three mini-DisplayPort outputs, ready for a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot. The K3000M is an MXM module for portable workstations, with outputs that depend entirely on the host laptop. If you are building or upgrading a desktop workstation, the P400 is the only one that physically fits. If you are repairing or upgrading a legacy mobile workstation, the K3000M is the only option that makes sense.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 records an average benchmark score of 4684, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M sits at 4241. That puts the P400 roughly 10.4% higher in aggregate performance.

Q: Is the Quadro P400 faster than the Quadro K3000M in OpenCL?

A: Yes, but only marginally. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P400 scores 4249 against the K3000M's 4241, a delta of 0.2%. It is a win, but not a decisive one.

Q: Does the Quadro K3000M support Vulkan?

A: The K3000M lists Vulkan 1.2.175 API support, but it has no recorded Vulkan benchmark score in the database. The P400 supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The K3000M has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 89.60 GB/s, compared to the P400's 32.06 GB/s. This comes from the K3000M's 256-bit memory bus versus the P400's 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The P400 has a 30 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 200 W, drawing power from the PCIe slot with no external connectors. The K3000M has a 75 W TDP and no suggested PSU figure, as it is an MXM module powered by the host laptop.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The P400 was released in early 2017, while the K3000M dates back to mid-2012.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a close one. The Quadro P400 scores 4249, the Quadro K3000M scores 4241. The delta is 0.2%, which is within the margin of run-to-run variation for most benchmark suites. In practice, OpenCL workloads that are not memory-bound would likely perform nearly identically on both cards.

However, the wider benchmark data tells a more nuanced story. The P400's average benchmark score of 4684 benefits from its additional Vulkan result of 5119. The K3000M has no Vulkan score recorded, so its average is simply its OpenCL number. If you are running Vulkan-based applications, the P400 is the clear choice, it has a recorded score in that API, and the K3000M has none.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for how each card stacks up in its respective peer group. The P400's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, which scores 4727, about 0.9% higher. It also sits near the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and AMD Radeon R5 M320, both at 4657, which are about 0.6% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M trails at 4628, about 1.2% behind.

The K3000M's rival cluster is different. The AMD FirePro W2100 leads at 4295, about 1.3% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282, about 1% higher. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 sits at 4268, about 0.6% higher. Only the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti trails the K3000M, scoring 4193, which is 1.2% lower.

The takeaway from the head-to-head and rival data is that the P400 is not dramatically faster than the K3000M in compute tasks, but it is faster. And it brings a modern API feature set that the older card cannot match.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge sharply on almost every hardware specification. The P400 uses a 14 nm process node from Samsung, while the K3000M uses a 28 nm node from TSMC. The transistor counts are similar in absolute terms, 3,300 million for the P400 versus 3,540 million for the K3000M, but the die sizes tell the real story. The P400 packs those transistors into 132 mm², while the K3000M spreads its transistors across 294 mm². That yields a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm² for the P400 versus 12.0 million per mm² for the K3000M.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The P400 runs at a base clock of 1228 MHz with a boost up to 1252 MHz. The K3000M is locked at 654 MHz for both base and boost, roughly half the clock rate. Memory clocks follow the same pattern: the P400's memory runs at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the K3000M's memory runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective.

The memory subsystem is where the K3000M fights back. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the K3000M's 256-bit bus width gives it 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly three times the P400's 32.06 GB/s from its 64-bit bus.

The compute unit counts are also lopsided in different ways. The K3000M has more shading units (576 versus 256), more texture mapping units (48 versus 16), and more render output units (32 versus 16). Yet the P400 still wins in pixel rate, 20.03 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s, and texture rate, 20.03 GTexel/s versus 31.39 GTexel/s for the K3000M. The K3000M actually has a higher texture rate despite fewer clocks, but the P400's pixel rate is far ahead.

Form factor and connectivity are entirely different. The P400 is a single-slot, 150 mm long, 69 mm tall card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The K3000M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The P400 has a 30 W TDP and no power connectors; the K3000M has a 75 W TDP and no power connectors either, relying on the laptop's MXM slot for power.

Architecture Differences

The P400 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, specifically the GP107 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation. Pascal brought significant improvements in clock efficiency and power consumption over the preceding Maxwell architecture. The P400's 14 nm Samsung process allows it to hit 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost clocks while drawing only 30 W. This is a desktop-oriented card designed for low-profile CAD and professional visualization workstations.

The K3000M uses the Kepler architecture, built on the GK104 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation. Kepler was designed for a different era, with a focus on compute throughput and geometry processing. The 28 nm TSMC process was state-of-the-art at the time, but it cannot match the density or efficiency of the later 14 nm node. The K3000M's 654 MHz clock speed reflects the thermal and power constraints of a mobile MXM module from 2012.

The compute feature sets differ as well. The P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both are end-of-life products, but the P400's API support is more modern, particularly the Vulkan version bump.

The K3000M does have a raw compute advantage on paper. Its 576 shading units and 753.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput exceed the P400's 256 shading units and 641.0 GFLOPS. However, that advantage is nullified in practice by the P400's far higher clocks and architectural efficiency. The P400 also supports FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS, a feature the K3000M does not list at all.

The P400's predecessor is the Quadro Maxwell generation, and its successor is Quadro Volta. The K3000M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. These lineage differences place the two cards on opposite sides of a major architectural transition.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion, but the right choice depends entirely on your hardware platform.

For a desktop workstation, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the only sensible pick. It is a single-slot PCIe card that draws 30 W, requires no power connectors, and fits in a 200 W PSU system. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, scores higher in OpenCL, and has a recorded Vulkan score of 5119. Its 14 nm process and Pascal architecture make it far more efficient than the older Kepler design. The 27th percentile ranking versus the K3000M's 25th is a small but real edge.

For a laptop workstation that takes MXM modules, the K3000M is the only option. The P400 cannot physically install in an MXM slot, and the K3000M's portable-device-dependent outputs mean it is designed exclusively for mobile chassis. If you are servicing a 2012-era workstation laptop, the K3000M is what fits. Its 89.60 GB/s memory bandwidth is genuinely useful for memory-heavy tasks, even if its raw compute score is slightly lower.

The performance gap between the two is not large enough to justify replacing a working K3000M laptop with a new system solely for compute speed. The 0.2% OpenCL delta is negligible in real workloads. However, if you are choosing between two used cards for a desktop build, the P400 is the better investment. It has newer API support, higher clocks, lower power draw, and a smaller physical footprint.

The verdict: buy the P400 for desktop work, keep the K3000M for legacy mobile platforms. Neither card will impress in modern workloads, but the P400 is the more capable and future-proof of the two.