NVIDIA Quadro K3000M vs AMD Radeon HD 7470M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and AMD Radeon HD 7470M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 month(s) later
- 5.2x more texture fill rate: 31.39 GTexel / s vs 6 GTexel / s
- 3.6x more pipelines: 576 vs 160
- 3.1x better floating-point performance: 753.4 gflops vs 240.0 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 56% higher memory clock speed: 2800 MHz vs 1800 MHz
- 4x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1643 vs 408
- Around 26% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4199 vs 3322
- 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3505 vs 1422
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 vs 3074
- 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3505 vs 1422
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 vs 3074
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 1 June 2012 vs 7 January 2012 |
Texture fill rate | 31.39 GTexel / s vs 6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 576 vs 160 |
Floating-point performance | 753.4 gflops vs 240.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
Memory clock speed | 2800 MHz vs 1800 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1643 vs 408 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4199 vs 3322 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3505 vs 1422 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 vs 3074 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3505 vs 1422 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 vs 3074 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 7470M
- Around 15% higher core clock speed: 750 MHz vs 654 MHz
- 10.7x lower typical power consumption: 7 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 16% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 393 vs 339
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 750 MHz vs 654 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 7 Watt vs 75 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 393 vs 339 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K3000M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7470M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro K3000M | AMD Radeon HD 7470M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1643 | 408 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 339 | 393 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4199 | 3322 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.45 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 403.983 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.992 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.202 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 24.266 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2527 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3505 | 1422 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3353 | 3074 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2527 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3505 | 1422 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3353 | 3074 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro K3000M | AMD Radeon HD 7470M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Kepler | TeraScale 2 |
Code name | GK104 | Seymour |
Launch date | 1 June 2012 | 7 January 2012 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $155 | |
Place in performance rating | 1033 | 1034 |
Price now | $155 | |
Type | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
Value for money (0-100) | 13.57 | |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 654 MHz | 750 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 753.4 gflops | 240.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 576 | 160 |
Texture fill rate | 31.39 GTexel / s | 6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 7 Watt |
Transistor count | 3,540 million | 370 million |
Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB / s | 14.4 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 2800 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 / GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |