Quadro M1000M vs GeForce GTS 250

Place in the ranking	973	536
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.08	4.17
Power efficiency	0.71	12.74
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	G92B	GM107
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	4 March 2009 (15 years ago)	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$200.89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M1000M has 5113% better value for money than GTS 250.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	128	512
Core clock speed	738 MHz	993 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1072 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	40 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	44.93	31.78
Floating-point processing power	0.3871 TFLOPS	1.017 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	64	32

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	229 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	None
SLI options	+	-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB/4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1100 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	70.4 GB/s	80 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	Two Dual Link DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Display Port	no data	1.2
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	-	+
3D Vision Pro	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	3.0	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	+
CUDA	+	5.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTS 250 1.54

M1000M 7.40
+381%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTS 250 592

M1000M 2844
+380%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD	8−9 −388%	39 +388%
4K	3−4 −433%	16 +433%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	24.88 −383%	5.15 +383%
4K	66.33 −428%	12.56 +428%

M1000M has 383% lower cost per frame in 1080p
M1000M has 428% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Elden Ring	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Elden Ring	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Fortnite	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
World of Tanks	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Valorant	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Elden Ring	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
World of Tanks	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Elden Ring	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Fortnite	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Valorant	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

This is how GTS 250 and M1000M compete in popular games:

M1000M is 388% faster in 1080p
M1000M is 433% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.54	7.40
Recency	4 March 2009	18 August 2015
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB/4 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	40 Watt

M1000M has a 380.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 275% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop card while Quadro M1000M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.