NVIDIA Quadro P3000 vs AMD Radeon R9 280X
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P3000 and AMD Radeon R9 280X videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, API support, Memory, Technologies, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, 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, 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro P3000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 3 month(s) later
- Around 22% higher boost clock speed: 1215 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 16 nm vs 28 nm
- 3.3x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 250 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 6 GB vs 3 GB
- Around 5% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6484 vs 6171
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3720 vs 3700
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3720 vs 3700
- Around 48% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 3489 vs 2351
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 11 January 2017 vs 8 October 2013 |
| Boost clock speed | 1215 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 250 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 6 GB vs 3 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6484 vs 6171 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 vs 3700 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 vs 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 vs 3700 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 vs 3357 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3489 vs 2351 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 280X
- Around 60% higher pipelines: 2048 vs 1280
- Around 60% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 679 vs 425
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Pipelines | 2048 vs 1280 |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 679 vs 425 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9603 vs 9579 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9603 vs 9579 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P3000
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 280X
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| 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 |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro P3000 | AMD Radeon R9 280X |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6484 | 6171 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 425 | 679 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 25929 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9579 | 9603 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3720 | 3700 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3360 | 3357 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9579 | 9603 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3720 | 3700 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3360 | 3357 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 3489 | 2351 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 89.187 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1434.496 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 7.656 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 87.459 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 493.57 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro P3000 | AMD Radeon R9 280X | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | N17E-Q1 | Tahiti |
| Launch date | 11 January 2017 | 8 October 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 393 | 394 |
| Type | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | AMD Radeon R9 200 Series | |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1215 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1088 MHz | |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 1280 | 2048 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Floating-point performance | 4,096 gflops | |
| Stream Processors | 2048 | |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 GTexel / s | |
| Transistor count | 4,313 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Port | 1.4 | |
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 168 GB / s | 288 GB/s |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Stereo | ||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
| HD3D | ||
| LiquidVR | ||
| TressFX | ||
| TrueAudio | ||
| Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | |
| Length | 275 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro P3000 with others
NVIDIAQuadro P3000 vs
ATIMobility FireGL V5725
NVIDIAQuadro P3000 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 550v
NVIDIAQuadro P3000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7690M XT
NVIDIAQuadro P3000 vs
AMDRadeon R9 280X
NVIDIAQuadro P3000 vs
AMDFirePro W8100
NVIDIAQuadro P3000 vs
AMDRadeon RX 560X
