Quadro NVS 290 vs Quadro 1000M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 1000M with Quadro NVS 290, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 1000M
2011
2 GB DDR3, 45 Watt
1.47
+149%

1000M outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 149% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9831200
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.11no data
Power efficiency2.261.94
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGF108G86
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date13 January 2011 (13 years ago)4 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$174.95 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro 1000M and NVS 290 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores9616
Core clock speed700 MHz459 MHz
Number of transistors585 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt21 Watt
Texture fill rate11.203.672
Floating-point processing power0.2688 TFLOPS0.02938 TFLOPS
ROPs44
TMUs168

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3DDR2
Maximum RAM amount2 GB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s6.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 outputs1x DMS-59

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.11.1

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.

Quadro 1000M 1.47
+149%
NVS 290 0.59

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.

Quadro 1000M 566
+148%
NVS 290 228

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 HD43
+169%
16−18
−169%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.079.31

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+175%
12−14
−175%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+175%
12−14
−175%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+150%
6−7
−150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+175%
12−14
−175%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

This is how Quadro 1000M and NVS 290 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 1000M is 169% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.47 0.59
Recency 13 January 2011 4 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 21 Watt

Quadro 1000M has a 149.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 290, on the other hand, has 114.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro 1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 1000M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro NVS 290 is a 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 Quadro 1000M
Quadro 1000M
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
Quadro NVS 290

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.


3.4 122 votes

Rate Quadro 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 21 vote

Rate Quadro NVS 290 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.