Radeon HD 7650A vs Quadro M1000M

Place in the ranking	534	985
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.03	0.12
Power efficiency	12.67	3.08
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	GM107	Onega
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	5 January 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$200.89	$262

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M1000M has 3258% better value for money than HD 7650A.

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	480
Core clock speed	993 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1072 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,870 million	716 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	33 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.78	14.40
Floating-point processing power	1.017 TFLOPS	0.576 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	32	24

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	no data
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	1 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	-	no data

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	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.0
OpenGL	4.5	4.4
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	5.0	-

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
+399%

HD 7650A 1.48

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 2846
+400%

HD 7650A 569

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 +400%	8−9 −400%
4K	13 +550%	2−3 −550%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	5.02	32.75
4K	15.45	131.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14

+500%

2−3
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +450%	4−5 −450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +425%	4−5 −425%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +444%	9−10 −444%
Hitman 3	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +438%	8−9 −438%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +425%	4−5 −425%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +450%	10−11 −450%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Battlefield 5	21−24 +450%	4−5 −450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +425%	4−5 −425%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +444%	9−10 −444%
Hitman 3	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +438%	8−9 −438%
Metro Exodus	21−24 +425%	4−5 −425%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 +400%	4−5 −400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	62 +417%	12−14 −417%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +450%	10−11 −450%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +400%	3−4 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +444%	9−10 −444%
Hitman 3	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +438%	8−9 −438%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +400%	5−6 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +450%	2−3 −450%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55−60 +450%	10−11 −450%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

20−22

+400%

4−5
−400%

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 +600%	1−2 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +440%	5−6 −440%
Hitman 3	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
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 +422%	9−10 −422%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14

+550%

2−3
−550%

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 +400%	5−6 −400%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7 +600%	1−2 −600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
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
+600%

1−2

−600%

This is how M1000M and HD 7650A compete in popular games:

M1000M is 400% faster in 1080p
M1000M is 550% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.39	1.48
Recency	18 August 2015	5 January 2012
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB/4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	33 Watt

M1000M has a 399.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

HD 7650A, on the other hand, has 21.2% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7650A in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M1000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon HD 7650A 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.