UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs vs Quadro K1000M

Place in the ranking	890	656
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.49	no data
Power efficiency	3.08	11.16
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code name	GK107	Tiger Lake Xe
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	15 August 2020 (4 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 cores	192	48
Core clock speed	850 MHz	350 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1450 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	13.60	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.3264 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	16	no data

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 size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	no data

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 type	DDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	no data
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 Connectors

No outputs

no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
Quick Sync	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12_1
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	+	-
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

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 4.56
+126%

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

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 3510
+219%

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

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 10650
+106%

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:

900p	9 −100%	18−21 +100%
Full HD	16 −12.5%	18 +12.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

7.49

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−175%

11
+175%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −1000%	10−12 +1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −250%	27−30 +250%
Hitman 3	7−8 −42.9%	10 +42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −100%	36 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −70%	16−18 +70%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −28.6%	45−50 +28.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −1000%	10−12 +1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −160%	12−14 +160%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −250%	27−30 +250%
Hitman 3	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −66.7%	30−33 +66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −70%	17 +70%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −41.7%	16−18 +41.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −28.6%	45−50 +28.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −85.7%	12−14 +85.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −250%	27−30 +250%
Hitman 3	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +50%	12 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −60%	16 +60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +50%	8 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −28.6%	45−50 +28.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−200%

12−14
+200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Hitman 3	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 −155%	27−30 +155%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−60%

8−9
+60%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−200%

3−4
+200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	2−3
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−66.7%

5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12 +0%	12 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

This is how K1000M and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs compete in popular games:

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 100% faster in 900p
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 13% 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 50% faster.
in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 1000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

K1000M is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is ahead in 51 test (78%)
there's a draw in 12 tests (18%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.02	4.56
Recency	1 June 2012	15 August 2020
Chip lithography	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	28 Watt

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs has a 125.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 60.7% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation card while UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 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.