Arc A370M vs Quadro K1000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K1000M with Arc A370M, including specs and performance data.

K1000M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 45 Watt
2.02

Arc A370M outperforms K1000M by a whopping 556% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking882383
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.37no data
Power efficiency3.1026.19
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGK107DG2-128
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)30 March 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119.90 no data

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 cores1921024
Core clock speed850 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1550 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate13.6099.20
Floating-point processing power0.3264 TFLOPS3.174 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs1664
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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 4.0 x8

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s112.0 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

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
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.

K1000M 2.02
Arc A370M 13.26
+556%

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.

K1000M 778
Arc A370M 5115
+557%

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.

K1000M 1102
Arc A370M 12090
+997%

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:

900p9
−511%
55−60
+511%
Full HD17
−129%
39
+129%
1440p3−4
−600%
21
+600%
4K5−6
−580%
34
+580%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.05no data
1440p39.97no data
4K23.98no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−1050%
46
+1050%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−414%
35−40
+414%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−5000%
50−55
+5000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−540%
30−35
+540%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−825%
37
+825%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1133%
35−40
+1133%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−760%
40−45
+760%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−1175%
100−110
+1175%
Hitman 3 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−344%
80−85
+344%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−975%
40−45
+975%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−410%
50−55
+410%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−129%
80−85
+129%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−414%
35−40
+414%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−5000%
50−55
+5000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−540%
30−35
+540%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−525%
25
+525%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1133%
35−40
+1133%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−760%
40−45
+760%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−1175%
100−110
+1175%
Hitman 3 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−344%
80−85
+344%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−975%
40−45
+975%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−520%
62
+520%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−208%
35−40
+208%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−129%
80−85
+129%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−414%
35−40
+414%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−540%
30−35
+540%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−425%
21
+425%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1133%
35−40
+1133%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−1175%
100−110
+1175%
Hitman 3 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−344%
80−85
+344%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−430%
53
+430%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−117%
26
+117%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+133%
15
−133%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−975%
40−45
+975%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−933%
30−35
+933%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Hitman 3 7−8
−171%
18−20
+171%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−433%
30−35
+433%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
−773%
95−100
+773%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−420%
24−27
+420%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 8−9
Far Cry 5 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 6−7

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 33
+0%
33
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20
+0%
20
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18
+0%
18
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 37
+0%
37
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how K1000M and Arc A370M compete in popular games:

  • Arc A370M is 511% faster in 900p
  • Arc A370M is 129% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A370M is 600% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A370M is 580% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K1000M is 133% faster.
  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A370M is 5000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K1000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • Arc A370M is ahead in 52 tests (74%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (24%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.02 13.26
Recency 1 June 2012 30 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 35 Watt

Arc A370M has a 556.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 28.6% lower power consumption.

The Arc A370M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation card while Arc A370M 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 Quadro K1000M
Quadro K1000M
Intel Arc A370M
Arc A370M

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.


3.7 77 votes

Rate Quadro K1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 163 votes

Rate Arc A370M 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.