Radeon R6 (Carrizo) vs Quadro M1000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M1000M with Radeon R6 (Carrizo), including specs and performance data.

M1000M
2015
2 GB/4 GB GDDR5, 40 Watt
7.39
+389%

M1000M outperforms R6 (Carrizo) by a whopping 389% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking534975
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.03no data
Power efficiency12.672.96
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameGM107Carrizo
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date18 August 2015 (9 years ago)4 June 2015 (9 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 cores512384
Core clock speed993 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1072 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million2410 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)40 Watt12-35 Watt
Texture fill rate31.78no data
Floating-point processing power1.017 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs32no 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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)no data
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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GB/4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth80 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data
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 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
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
+389%
R6 (Carrizo) 1.51

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
+194%
R6 (Carrizo) 1438

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

M1000M 3498
+285%
R6 (Carrizo) 909

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

M1000M 23422
+397%
R6 (Carrizo) 4717

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
+264%
11
−264%
4K13
+550%
2−3
−550%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.02no 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
+400%
2−3
−400%
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
+400%
2−3
−400%
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
+343%
14
−343%
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
+400%
2−3
−400%
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
+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
+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 R6 (Carrizo) compete in popular games:

  • M1000M is 264% 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 1.51
Recency 18 August 2015 4 June 2015
Power consumption (TDP) 40 Watt 12 Watt

M1000M has a 389.4% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 months.

R6 (Carrizo), on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R6 (Carrizo) in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M1000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R6 (Carrizo) 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
AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo)
Radeon R6 (Carrizo)

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
4.1 13 votes

Rate Radeon R6 (Carrizo) 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.