Quadro FX 1000 vs Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) with Quadro FX 1000, including specs and performance data.

Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)
2023
9.41
+11663%

Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) outperforms FX 1000 by a whopping 11663% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5201553
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureXe LPG (2023−2025)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameMeteor Lake iGPUNV30
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date14 December 2023 (2 years ago)21 January 2003 (23 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores4no data
Core clock speed300 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1950 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data125 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm130 nm
Texture fill rateno data2.400
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8
L1 Cache768 KBno 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).

Interfaceno dataAGP 8x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x Molex

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 typeno dataDDR2
Maximum RAM amountno data128 MB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data300 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data9.6 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectorsno data2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

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

DirectXno data9.0a
OpenGLno data1.5 (2.1)
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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 HD20-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 21−24 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 50−55 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 21−24 0−1
Battlefield 5 40−45 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 50−55 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1
Far Cry 5 24 0−1
Fortnite 55−60 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 27−30 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35 0−1
Valorant 90−95 0−1

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 21−24 0−1
Battlefield 5 40−45 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 50−55 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+14300%
1−2
−14300%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1
Far Cry 5 22 0−1
Fortnite 55−60 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 27−30 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 15 0−1
Metro Exodus 18−20 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30 0−1
Valorant 90−95 0−1

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1
Far Cry 5 21 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16 0−1

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14 0−1
Metro Exodus 10−11 0−1
Valorant 90−95 0−1

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9 0−1
Far Cry 5 20−22 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 20−22 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22 0−1
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12 0−1
Valorant 40−45 0−1

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−12 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16−18 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.41 0.08
Recency 14 December 2023 21 January 2003
Chip lithography 5 nm 130 nm

Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) has a 11663% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 20 years, and a 2500% more advanced lithography process.

The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 1000 is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Quadro FX 1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) or Quadro FX 1000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.