Tesla P4 vs Quadro M1000M

Place in the ranking	536	242
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.19	no data
Power efficiency	12.76	21.45
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	GM107	GP104
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	18 August 2015 (9 years ago)	13 September 2016 (8 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 cores	512	2560
Core clock speed	993 MHz	886 MHz
Boost clock speed	1072 MHz	1114 MHz
Number of transistors	1,870 million	7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.78	178.2
Floating-point processing power	1.017 TFLOPS	5.704 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	32	160

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)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB/4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	192.3 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 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	5.0	6.1

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 7.40

Tesla P4 23.32
+215%

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 2844

Tesla P4 8966
+215%

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	39 −208%	120−130 +208%
4K	16 −213%	50−55 +213%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	5.15	no data
4K	12.56	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −200%	45−50 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −200%	45−50 +200%
Elden Ring	20−22 −200%	60−65 +200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −213%	75−80 +213%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −200%	45−50 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −200%	45−50 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −200%	90−95 +200%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −189%	55−60 +189%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −210%	65−70 +210%
Valorant	24−27 −213%	75−80 +213%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −213%	75−80 +213%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −200%	45−50 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −200%	45−50 +200%
Dota 2	24−27 −208%	80−85 +208%
Elden Ring	20−22 −200%	60−65 +200%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −203%	100−105 +203%
Fortnite	40−45 −195%	130−140 +195%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −200%	90−95 +200%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −208%	80−85 +208%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −189%	55−60 +189%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 −200%	180−190 +200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −210%	65−70 +210%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −204%	70−75 +204%
Valorant	24−27 −213%	75−80 +213%
World of Tanks	110−120 −210%	350−400 +210%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −213%	75−80 +213%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −200%	45−50 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −200%	45−50 +200%
Dota 2	24−27 −208%	80−85 +208%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −203%	100−105 +203%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −200%	90−95 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 −200%	180−190 +200%
Valorant	24−27 −213%	75−80 +213%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9 −200%	24−27 +200%
Elden Ring	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 −200%	24−27 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −208%	120−130 +208%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%
World of Tanks	50−55 −202%	160−170 +202%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −208%	40−45 +208%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −180%	14−16 +180%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −200%	45−50 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 −186%	40−45 +186%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −173%	30−33 +173%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −200%	27−30 +200%
Valorant	18−20 −189%	55−60 +189%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Dota 2	18−20 −206%	55−60 +206%
Elden Ring	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −206%	55−60 +206%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −200%	9−10 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 −210%	65−70 +210%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −180%	14−16 +180%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −206%	55−60 +206%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Dota 2	18−20 −206%	55−60 +206%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −200%	27−30 +200%
Fortnite	7−8 −200%	21−24 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −200%	24−27 +200%
Valorant	7−8 −200%	21−24 +200%

This is how M1000M and Tesla P4 compete in popular games:

Tesla P4 is 208% faster in 1080p
Tesla P4 is 213% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.40	23.32
Recency	18 August 2015	13 September 2016
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB/4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	75 Watt

M1000M has 87.5% lower power consumption.

Tesla P4, on the other hand, has a 215.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Tesla P4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M1000M is a mobile workstation card while Tesla P4 is a workstation one.

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