GeForce MX250 vs Quadro K1000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K1000M with GeForce MX250, including specs and performance data.

K1000M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 45 Watt
2.02

MX250 outperforms K1000M by a whopping 209% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking890579
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.49no data
Power efficiency3.0842.78
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK107GP108B
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)20 February 2019 (5 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 cores192384
Core clock speed850 MHz937 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1038 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate13.6024.91
Floating-point processing power0.3264 TFLOPS0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs1624

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 sizedlarge
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x4
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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s48.06 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 outputsPortable Device Dependent

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 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.7 (6.4)
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA+6.1

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.

K1000M 2.02
GeForce MX250 6.24
+209%

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 777
GeForce MX250 2405
+210%

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
GeForce MX250 4633
+320%

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.

K1000M 5165
GeForce MX250 16488
+219%

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.

K1000M 1739
GeForce MX250 9273
+433%

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.

K1000M 1509
GeForce MX250 9392
+522%

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.

K1000M 1335
GeForce MX250 9734
+629%

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
−200%
27−30
+200%
Full HD16
−37.5%
22
+37.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.49no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−250%
14
+250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−171%
19
+171%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−2000%
21
+2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−260%
18
+260%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−175%
11
+175%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−633%
22
+633%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−440%
27
+440%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−475%
46
+475%
Hitman 3 7−8
−129%
16
+129%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−556%
118
+556%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−600%
28
+600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−250%
35
+250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−117%
76
+117%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−243%
24
+243%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−240%
17
+240%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−533%
19
+533%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−240%
17
+240%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−438%
43
+438%
Hitman 3 7−8
−129%
16
+129%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−539%
115
+539%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−300%
16
+300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−120%
22
+120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−66.7%
20−22
+66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−103%
71
+103%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−140%
12
+140%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−333%
13
+333%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−100%
16
+100%
Hitman 3 7−8
−85.7%
12−14
+85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+12.5%
16
−12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−60%
16
+60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−45.7%
50−55
+45.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−350%
18
+350%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Hitman 3 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
−264%
40−45
+264%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−120%
10−12
+120%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 3−4
Far Cry 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Metro Exodus 25
+0%
25
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 19
+0%
19
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how K1000M and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX250 is 200% faster in 900p
  • GeForce MX250 is 38% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K1000M is 13% faster.
  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 2000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K1000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GeForce MX250 is ahead in 50 tests (72%)
  • there's a draw in 18 tests (26%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.02 6.24
Recency 1 June 2012 20 February 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX250 has a 208.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 350% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce MX250 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
NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GeForce MX250

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 82 votes

Rate Quadro K1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1556 votes

Rate GeForce MX250 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.