Quadro P1000 vs Radeon R9 285

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 285 with Quadro P1000, including specs and performance data.

R9 285
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
17.31
+49.7%

R9 285 outperforms P1000 by an impressive 50% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking312408
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.575.97
Power efficiency6.3120.01
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameTongaGP107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date2 September 2014 (10 years ago)7 February 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 $375

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 285 has 44% better value for money than Quadro P1000.

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 cores1792640
Core clock speed918 MHz1493 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1519 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate102.848.61
Floating-point processing power3.29 TFLOPS1.555 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs11232

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length221 mm145 mm
Width2-slotMXM Module
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone

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 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1375 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth176.0 GB/s96.13 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2Portable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.2.1701.3
CUDA-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.

R9 285 17.31
+49.7%
Quadro P1000 11.56

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.

R9 285 6680
+49.8%
Quadro P1000 4459

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.

R9 285 8570
+79%
Quadro P1000 4787

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 HD60−65
+46.3%
41
−46.3%
4K16−18
+45.5%
11
−45.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.159.15
4K15.5634.09

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 108
+0%
108
+0%
Hitman 3 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 53
+0%
53
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100
+0%
100
+0%
Hitman 3 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Hitman 3 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+0%
16
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Hitman 3 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

This is how R9 285 and Quadro P1000 compete in popular games:

  • R9 285 is 46% faster in 1080p
  • R9 285 is 45% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.31 11.56
Recency 2 September 2014 7 February 2017
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 40 Watt

R9 285 has a 49.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro P1000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 375% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P1000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 285 is a desktop card while Quadro P1000 is a 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.


AMD Radeon R9 285
Radeon R9 285
NVIDIA Quadro P1000
Quadro P1000

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.


4.2 76 votes

Rate Radeon R9 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 534 votes

Rate Quadro P1000 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.