GRID K2 vs Quadro M1000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M1000M with GRID K2, including specs and performance data.
M1000M outperforms K2 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 610 | 623 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.71 | 0.06 |
| Power efficiency | 13.05 | 2.26 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 August 2015 (10 years ago) | 11 May 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $200.89 | $5,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
M1000M has 2750% better value for money than GRID K2.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 cores | 512 | 1536 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 993 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1072 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.78 | 95.36 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.017 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 ×2 |
| TMUs | 32 | 128 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 512 KB |
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 | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | 4 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s ×2 |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.175 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | 3.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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
+11.4%
| 35−40
−11.4%
|
| 4K | 13
+8.3%
| 12−14
−8.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.15
+2784%
| 148.54
−2784%
|
| 4K | 15.45
+2704%
| 433.25
−2704%
|
- M1000M has 2784% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- M1000M has 2704% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+5.7%
|
70−75
−5.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+10%
|
100−105
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+8%
|
50−55
−8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+5.7%
|
70−75
−5.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+8%
|
50−55
−8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+5.7%
|
70−75
−5.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+17.1%
|
35−40
−17.1%
|
| Palworld | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+4%
|
50−55
−4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+14.3%
|
35−40
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+7.7%
|
65−70
−7.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Palworld | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+7.4%
|
27−30
−7.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how M1000M and GRID K2 compete in popular games:
- M1000M is 11% faster in 1080p
- M1000M is 8% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.75 | 6.57 |
| Recency | 18 August 2015 | 11 May 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB/4 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 225 Watt |
M1000M has a 3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 463% lower power consumption.
GRID K2, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M1000M and GRID K2.
Be aware that Quadro M1000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GRID K2 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.
