Quadro M1000M vs GeForce GTX 280

Place in the ranking	729	528
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.11	3.75
Power efficiency	1.03	13.33
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	GT200	GM107
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$649	$200.89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M1000M has 3309% better value for money than GTX 280.

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	240	512
Core clock speed	602 MHz	993 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1072 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	236 Watt	40 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	48.16	31.78
Floating-point processing power	0.6221 TFLOPS	1.017 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	80	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	267 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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	512 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1107 MHz	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	141.7 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	HDTVDual Link DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
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	2.1	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.

GTX 280 3.37

M1000M 7.39
+119%

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.

GTX 280 1299

M1000M 2850
+119%

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	16−18 −144%	39 +144%
4K	6−7 −150%	15 +150%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	62 +0%	62 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +0%	11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20−22

+0%

20−22

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+0%

12−14

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7 +0%	7 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

This is how GTX 280 and M1000M compete in popular games:

M1000M is 144% faster in 1080p
M1000M is 150% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.37	7.39
Recency	16 June 2008	18 August 2015
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB/4 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	236 Watt	40 Watt

M1000M has a 119.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 490% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 280 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.