Quadro 4000M vs Quadro M1000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M1000M and Quadro 4000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

M1000M
2015
2 GB/4 GB GDDR5, 40 Watt
7.39
+124%

M1000M outperforms 4000M by a whopping 124% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking535740
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.030.35
Power efficiency12.662.26
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM107GF104
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$200.89 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M1000M has 1051% better value for money than Quadro 4000M.

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 cores512336
Core clock speed993 MHz475 MHz
Boost clock speed1072 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)40 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate31.7826.60
Floating-point processing power1.017 TFLOPS0.6384 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3256

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
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB/4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz625 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s80 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 outputsNo outputs
Display Port1.2no 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.

DirectX1212 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA5.02.1

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
+124%
Quadro 4000M 3.30

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
+124%
Quadro 4000M 1270

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
+102%
Quadro 4000M 2092

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
+63.4%
Quadro 4000M 5212

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
+33.3%
Quadro 4000M 18

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 HD40
−77.5%
71
+77.5%
4K13
+160%
5−6
−160%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.026.32
4K15.4589.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+214%
7−8
−214%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+158%
18−20
−158%
Hitman 3 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+79.2%
24−27
−79.2%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+320%
5−6
−320%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+92.3%
12−14
−92.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+37.5%
40−45
−37.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+214%
7−8
−214%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+158%
18−20
−158%
Hitman 3 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+79.2%
24−27
−79.2%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+320%
5−6
−320%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+92.3%
12−14
−92.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+313%
14−16
−313%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+37.5%
40−45
−37.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+90%
10−11
−90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+143%
7−8
−143%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+158%
18−20
−158%
Hitman 3 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+79.2%
24−27
−79.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+92.3%
12−14
−92.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−36.4%
14−16
+36.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+37.5%
40−45
−37.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+150%
8−9
−150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30 0−1
Hitman 3 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+135%
20−22
−135%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Hitman 3 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+150%
10−11
−150%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7
+133%
3−4
−133%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

This is how M1000M and Quadro 4000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 4000M is 78% faster in 1080p
  • M1000M is 160% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M1000M is 700% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 4000M is 36% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M1000M is ahead in 61 test (98%)
  • Quadro 4000M is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.39 3.30
Recency 18 August 2015 22 February 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 40 Watt 100 Watt

M1000M has a 123.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.


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 Quadro 4000M
Quadro 4000M

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.


3.5 551 vote

Rate Quadro M1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 33 votes

Rate Quadro 4000M 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.