Quadro K3000M vs FirePro M4000

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The Quadro K3000M is positioned at rank #79 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro K3000M

#38

Radeon PRO W6600X

MSRP: $699|Avg: $699

93%

#41

Quadro RTX 3000 (móvel)

MSRP: $600|Avg: $600

89%

#42

Radeon Pro W5700

MSRP: $799|Avg: $300

89%

#43

Radeon Pro W5700X

MSRP: $999|Avg: $999

87%

#44

RTX A4000

MSRP: $1111|Avg: $1111

87%

#45

RTX PRO 2000 Blackwell

MSRP: $849|Avg: $748

84%

#46

Quadro RTX 4000

MSRP: $899|Avg: $220

82%

#64

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

730%

#79

Quadro K3000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#80

T400

MSRP: $180|Avg: $179

99%

#86

Quadro P3200

MSRP: $500|Avg: $63

85%

#89

Quadro P2000

MSRP: $425|Avg: $190

81%

#90

Quadro T1000

MSRP: $400|Avg: $425

80%

#93

Radeon Pro 580

MSRP: $500|Avg: $150

77%

#94

T1000 8GB

MSRP: $500|Avg: $380

76%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Quadro K3000M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.4% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FirePro M4000.

Insight	Quadro K3000M	FirePro M4000
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+1.4%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.4%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+0%)
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro K3000M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Quadro K3000M Benchmark Check

FirePro M4000 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro K3000M and FirePro M4000

Quadro K3000M

The Quadro K3000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 1 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 654 MHz. It has 576 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,618 points. Launch price was $155.

FirePro M4000

The FirePro M4000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 27 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 675 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,596 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Quadro K3000M scores 1,618 and the FirePro M4000 reaches 1,596 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K3000M is built on Kepler while the FirePro M4000 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 576 (Quadro K3000M) vs 512 (FirePro M4000). Raw compute: 0.7534 TFLOPS (Quadro K3000M) vs 0.6912 TFLOPS (FirePro M4000).

Feature	Quadro K3000M	FirePro M4000
G3D Mark Score	1,618+1%	1,596
Architecture	Kepler	GCN 1.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	576+13%	512
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.7534 TFLOPS+9%	0.6912 TFLOPS
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	48+50%	32
L1 Cache	48 KB	128 KB+167%
L2 Cache	512 KB+100%	256 KB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro K3000M	FirePro M4000
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (Quadro K3000M) vs 256 KB (FirePro M4000) — the Quadro K3000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro K3000M	FirePro M4000
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	2 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	512 KB+100%	256 KB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro K3000M draws 75W versus the FirePro M4000's 33W — a 77.8% difference. The FirePro M4000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K3000M) vs 350W (FirePro M4000). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	Quadro K3000M	FirePro M4000
TDP	75W	33W-56%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Length	—	82mm
Height	—	0mm
Slots	—	1
Temp (Load)	—	75°C
Perf/Watt	21.6	48.4+124%