ATI Radeon HD 4670 vs Quadro K1000M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K1000M with Radeon HD 4670, including specs and performance data.

K1000M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 45 Watt
2.02
+106%

K1000M outperforms ATI HD 4670 by a whopping 106% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8811106
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.370.01
Power efficiency3.111.15
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameGK107RV730
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)10 September 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119.90 $67

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K1000M has 3600% better value for money than ATI HD 4670.

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 cores192320
Core clock speed850 MHz750 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million514 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt59 Watt
Texture fill rate13.6024.00
Floating-point processing power0.3264 TFLOPS0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs1632

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 2.0 x16
Lengthno data193 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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s32 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 outputs2x DVI, 1x S-Video

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)10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
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
+106%
ATI HD 4670 0.98

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
+105%
ATI HD 4670 379

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
+125%
4−5
−125%
Full HD17
+113%
8−9
−113%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.058.38

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 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Hitman 3 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Hitman 3 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Hitman 3 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%

Full HD
Epic Preset

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

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

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

This is how K1000M and ATI HD 4670 compete in popular games:

  • K1000M is 125% faster in 900p
  • K1000M is 113% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.02 0.98
Recency 1 June 2012 10 September 2008
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 59 Watt

K1000M has a 106.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 31.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4670 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon HD 4670 is a desktop 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
ATI Radeon HD 4670
Radeon HD 4670

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 78 votes

Rate Quadro K1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 149 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4670 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.