Quadro K1000M vs GeForce GTX 760
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 760 with Quadro K1000M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 760 outperforms K1000M by a whopping 521% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 407 | 899 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.52 | 0.52 |
| Power efficiency | 5.05 | 3.08 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 25 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $119.90 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 760 has 769% better value for money than K1000M.
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 | 1152 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1033 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 99.07 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.378 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 96 | 16 |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Minimum recommended system power | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 28.8 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| PhysX | + | - |
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| CUDA | + | + |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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:
| 900p | 55−60
+511%
| 9
−511%
|
| Full HD | 67
+272%
| 18
−272%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.72
+79.2%
| 6.66
−79.2%
|
- GTX 760 has 79% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+750%
|
8−9
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+282%
|
10−12
−282%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+167%
|
35−40
−167%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+331%
|
35−40
−331%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+276%
|
21−24
−276%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+750%
|
8−9
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+282%
|
10−12
−282%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+167%
|
35−40
−167%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+276%
|
21−24
−276%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+282%
|
10−12
−282%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+167%
|
35−40
−167%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+750%
|
8−9
−750%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+577%
|
12−14
−577%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+485%
|
12−14
−485%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+807%
|
14−16
−807%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+600%
|
4−5
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+520%
|
10−11
−520%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
This is how GTX 760 and K1000M compete in popular games:
- GTX 760 is 511% faster in 900p
- GTX 760 is 272% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 760 is 2000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 760 surpassed K1000M in all 56 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.41 | 2.00 |
| Recency | 25 June 2013 | 1 June 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 45 Watt |
GTX 760 has a 520.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
K1000M, on the other hand, has 277.8% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 760 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 760 is a desktop card while Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
