GeForce GTS 250M vs Quadro M1000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M1000M with GeForce GTS 250M, including specs and performance data.

M1000M
2015
2 GB/4 GB GDDR5, 40 Watt
7.39
+417%

M1000M outperforms GTS 250M by a whopping 417% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking532994
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.75no data
Power efficiency12.773.53
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGM107GT215
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)15 June 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$200.89 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 cores51296
Core clock speed993 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1072 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million727 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)40 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate31.7816.00
Floating-point processing power1.017 TFLOPS0.24 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data360
ROPs168
TMUs3232

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 sizelargelarge
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data
SLI options-+
MXM Typeno dataMXM 3.0 Type-B

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB/4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHzUp to 2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s51.2 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 outputsHDMIVGALVDSSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVI
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
Power managementno data8.0
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.52.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA5.0+

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.

M1000M 7.39
+417%
GTS 250M 1.43

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.

M1000M 2852
+416%
GTS 250M 553

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 HD39
+39.3%
28
−39.3%
4K13
+550%
2−3
−550%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.15no data
4K15.45no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1533%
3−4
−1533%
Hitman 3 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+187%
14−16
−187%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+213%
8−9
−213%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+66.7%
30−35
−66.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1533%
3−4
−1533%
Hitman 3 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+187%
14−16
−187%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+213%
8−9
−213%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+464%
10−12
−464%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+66.7%
30−35
−66.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+217%
6−7
−217%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1533%
3−4
−1533%
Hitman 3 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+187%
14−16
−187%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+213%
8−9
−213%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+66.7%
30−35
−66.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+440%
5−6
−440%
Hitman 3 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+571%
7−8
−571%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7
+600%
1−2
−600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

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

This is how M1000M and GTS 250M compete in popular games:

  • M1000M is 39% faster in 1080p
  • M1000M is 550% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the M1000M is 1533% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M1000M is ahead in 48 tests (98%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.39 1.43
Recency 18 August 2015 15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB/4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 40 Watt 28 Watt

M1000M has a 416.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GTS 250M, on the other hand, has 42.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M1000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTS 250M 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 M1000M
Quadro M1000M
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250M
GeForce GTS 250M

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.


3.6 540 votes

Rate Quadro M1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 7 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 250M 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.