Quadro K3000M vs Radeon R9 M275X
Quadro K3000M
Popular choices:
Radeon R9 M275X
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro K3000M is positioned at rank 79 and the Radeon R9 M275X is on rank 460, so the Quadro K3000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K3000M
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R9 M275X
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R9 M275X is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.8% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K3000M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K3000M | Radeon R9 M275X |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon R9 M275X 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro K3000M and Radeon R9 M275X
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.
Radeon R9 M275X
The Radeon R9 M275X is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 28 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 900 MHz to 925 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,631 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K3000M scores 1,618 and the Radeon R9 M275X reaches 1,631 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K3000M is built on Kepler while the Radeon R9 M275X uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 576 (Quadro K3000M) vs 640 (Radeon R9 M275X). Raw compute: 0.7534 TFLOPS (Quadro K3000M) vs 1.184 TFLOPS (Radeon R9 M275X).
| Feature | Quadro K3000M | Radeon R9 M275X |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,618 | 1,631 |
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 576 | 640+11% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7534 TFLOPS | 1.184 TFLOPS+57% |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 48+20% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 48 KB | 160 KB+233% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K3000M | Radeon R9 M275X |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro K3000M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R9 M275X has 512 MB. The Quadro K3000M offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (Quadro K3000M) vs 256 KB (Radeon R9 M275X) — the Quadro K3000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K3000M | Radeon R9 M275X |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB+300% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K3000M draws 75W versus the Radeon R9 M275X's 75W — a 0% difference. The Radeon R9 M275X is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K3000M) vs 350W (Radeon R9 M275X). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Mobile.
| Feature | Quadro K3000M | Radeon R9 M275X |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Mobile |
| Length | — | 1mm |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Perf/Watt | 21.6 | 21.7 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R9 M275X is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2012).
| Feature | Quadro K3000M | Radeon R9 M275X |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $300 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $300 |
| Codename | GK104 | Venus |
| Release | June 1 2012 | January 28 2014 |
| Ranking | #748 | #746 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K3000M and Radeon R9 M275X
