Quadro M1000M vs GeForce MX350

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX350 with Quadro M1000M, including specs and performance data.

GeForce MX350
2020
2 GB GDDR5, 20 Watt
7.30

M1000M outperforms MX350 by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking538535
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data4.03
Power efficiency25.0112.66
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameGP107GM107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date10 February 2020 (4 years ago)18 August 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$200.89

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 cores640512
Core clock speed747 MHz993 MHz
Boost clock speed937 MHz1072 MHz
Number of transistors3,300 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate29.9831.78
Floating-point processing power1.199 TFLOPS1.017 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs3232

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB/4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1752 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth56.06 GB/s80 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
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus++
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA6.15.0

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.

GeForce MX350 7.30
M1000M 7.39
+1.2%

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.

GeForce MX350 2811
M1000M 2847
+1.3%

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.

GeForce MX350 6166
+45.8%
M1000M 4230

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GeForce MX350 4371
+25%
M1000M 3498

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GeForce MX350 24744
+5.6%
M1000M 23422

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.

GeForce MX350 13490
+58.4%
M1000M 8519

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.

GeForce MX350 13921
+74.9%
M1000M 7959

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.

GeForce MX350 12572
+48.4%
M1000M 8471

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 HD26
−53.8%
40
+53.8%
1440p31
+3.3%
30−35
−3.3%
4K25
+92.3%
13
−92.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.02
1440pno data6.70
4Kno data15.45

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 22
+15.8%
18−20
−15.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+30%
10−11
−30%
Battlefield 5 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 19
+26.7%
14−16
−26.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+52.9%
16−18
−52.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 35
+66.7%
21−24
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
−2.1%
45−50
+2.1%
Hitman 3 20
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 129
+200%
40−45
−200%
Metro Exodus 37
+76.2%
21−24
−76.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 32
+60%
20−22
−60%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
−4.2%
24−27
+4.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95
+72.7%
55−60
−72.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 26
+36.8%
18−20
−36.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Battlefield 5 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 17
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+35.3%
16−18
−35.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 25
+19%
21−24
−19%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
−2.1%
45−50
+2.1%
Hitman 3 20
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 116
+170%
40−45
−170%
Metro Exodus 28
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24
+20%
20−22
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 25
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−182%
62
+182%
Watch Dogs: Legion 88
+60%
55−60
−60%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
−138%
18−20
+138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6
−150%
14−16
+150%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Forza Horizon 4 19
−158%
45−50
+158%
Hitman 3 17
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20
−115%
40−45
+115%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
−31.6%
24−27
+31.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+45.5%
11
−45.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6
−817%
55−60
+817%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20
+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 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−3.8%
27−30
+3.8%
Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−2.2%
45−50
+2.2%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−4.2%
24−27
+4.2%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−75%
7
+75%

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 GeForce MX350 and M1000M compete in popular games:

  • M1000M is 54% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce MX350 is 3% faster in 1440p
  • GeForce MX350 is 92% faster in 4K

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 200% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M1000M is 817% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX350 is ahead in 21 test (29%)
  • M1000M is ahead in 24 tests (33%)
  • there's a draw in 27 tests (38%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.30 7.39
Recency 10 February 2020 18 August 2015
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 40 Watt

GeForce MX350 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

M1000M, on the other hand, has a 1.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce MX350 and Quadro M1000M.

Be aware that GeForce MX350 is a notebook graphics 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.

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 MX350
GeForce MX350
NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
Quadro M1000M

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.


3.5 1626 votes

Rate GeForce MX350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 551 vote

Rate Quadro M1000M 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.