Quadro 1000M vs Quadro M1000M

Place in the ranking	535	987
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.03	0.17
Power efficiency	12.67	2.24
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GM107	GF108
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	13 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$200.89	$174.95

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M1000M has 2271% better value for money than Quadro 1000M.

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	512	96
Core clock speed	993 MHz	700 MHz
Boost clock speed	1072 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.78	11.20
Floating-point processing power	1.017 TFLOPS	0.2688 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	4
TMUs	32	16

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	large	medium sized
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB/4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	28.8 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 Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
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.

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	5.0	2.1

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.

M1000M 7.39
+403%

Quadro 1000M 1.47

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 2847
+403%

Quadro 1000M 566

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.

M1000M 4230
+349%

Quadro 1000M 943

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.

M1000M 8519
+301%

Quadro 1000M 2123

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

M1000M 24
+243%

Quadro 1000M 7

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 HD	40 −2.5%	41 +2.5%
4K	13 +550%	2−3 −550%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	5.02	4.27
4K	15.45	87.48

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 +1125%	4−5 −1125%
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 +567%	3−4 −567%
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 +1125%	4−5 −1125%
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 +567%	3−4 −567%
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 +1125%	4−5 −1125%
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
+567%

3−4

−567%

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 Quadro 1000M compete in popular games:

Quadro 1000M is 3% 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 1125% 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	1.47
Recency	18 August 2015	13 January 2011
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	45 Watt

M1000M has a 402.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 12.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 1000M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.