Quadro P500 vs Quadro K3000M
Quadro P500
Popular choices:
Quadro K3000M
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 P500 is positioned at rank 244 and the Quadro K3000M is on rank 79, 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 P500
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K3000M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro P500 is significantly newer (2018 vs 2012). The Quadro P500 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro K3000M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro P500 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.5% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K3000M.
| Insight | Quadro P500 | Quadro K3000M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.5%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro P500 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 P500 and Quadro K3000M
Quadro P500
The Quadro P500 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 5 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1455 MHz to 1518 MHz. It has 256 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 18W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,659 points.
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.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro P500 scores 1,659 and the Quadro K3000M reaches 1,618 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro P500 is built on Pascal while the Quadro K3000M uses Kepler, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 256 (Quadro P500) vs 576 (Quadro K3000M). Raw compute: 0.7772 TFLOPS (Quadro P500) vs 0.7534 TFLOPS (Quadro K3000M).
| Feature | Quadro P500 | Quadro K3000M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,659+3% | 1,618 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 256 | 576+125% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7772 TFLOPS+3% | 0.7534 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 16 | 48+200% |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB+100% | 48 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro P500 | Quadro K3000M |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The Quadro P500 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K3000M has 2 GB. The Quadro P500 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Quadro P500 | Quadro K3000M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro P500 draws 18W versus the Quadro K3000M's 75W — a 122.6% difference. The Quadro P500 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro P500) vs 350W (Quadro K3000M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro P500 | Quadro K3000M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 18W-76% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Perf/Watt | 92.2+327% | 21.6 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro P500 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2012).
| Feature | Quadro P500 | Quadro K3000M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $500 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $500 | — |
| Codename | GP108 | GK104 |
| Release | January 5 2018 | June 1 2012 |
| Ranking | #740 | #748 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro P500 and Quadro K3000M
