Quadro K1000M vs GeForce GTX 780M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 780M with Quadro K1000M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 780M
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 122 Watt
9.86
+388%

GTX 780M outperforms K1000M by a whopping 388% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking457890
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.49
Power efficiency5.543.08
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK104GK107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date11 May 2013 (11 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$119.90

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1536192
Core clock speed823 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speed797 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,540 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)122 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate102.013.60
Floating-point processing power2.448 TFLOPS0.3264 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12816

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationGDDR5no data
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s28.8 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 3840x2160no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 3840x2160no data
HDMI+-
HDCP content protection+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus++
3D Vision / 3DTV Play+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
Vulkan1.1.126+
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. 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 780M 9.86
+388%
K1000M 2.02

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 780M 3797
+389%
K1000M 777

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.

GTX 780M 7777
+606%
K1000M 1102

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.

GTX 780M 26827
+419%
K1000M 5165

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.

GTX 780M 12857
+639%
K1000M 1739

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.

GTX 780M 12696
+741%
K1000M 1509

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.

GTX 780M 9535
+614%
K1000M 1335

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.

GTX 780M 37
+640%
K1000M 5

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:

900p40−45
+344%
9
−344%
Full HD65
+306%
16
−306%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data7.49

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+725%
8−9
−725%
Hitman 3 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+206%
18−20
−206%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+600%
4−5
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+80%
35−40
−80%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+725%
8−9
−725%
Hitman 3 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+206%
18−20
−206%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+433%
6−7
−433%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+600%
4−5
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+80%
35−40
−80%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+725%
8−9
−725%
Hitman 3 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+206%
18−20
−206%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+41.7%
12−14
−41.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+80%
35−40
−80%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+600%
4−5
−600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+389%
9−10
−389%
Hitman 3 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+473%
10−12
−473%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+438%
8−9
−438%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

This is how GTX 780M and K1000M compete in popular games:

  • GTX 780M is 344% faster in 900p
  • GTX 780M is 306% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 780M is 3000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 780M surpassed K1000M in all 53 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.86 2.02
Recency 11 May 2013 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 122 Watt 45 Watt

GTX 780M has a 388.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

K1000M, on the other hand, has 171.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 780M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K1000M 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M
GeForce GTX 780M
NVIDIA Quadro K1000M
Quadro K1000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 110 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 82 votes

Rate Quadro K1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.