Quadro K1000M vs Radeon E8950

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
E8950 R9 M295X R9 M295X Mac Edition R9 M390X R9 M395X R9 M395X Mac Edition R9 M485X
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
K100M K200M K500M K1000M K1100M K2000M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon E8950 with Quadro K1000M, including specs and performance data.

Radeon E8950
2015
8 GB GDDR5, 95 Watt
13.11
+637%

E8950 outperforms K1000M by a whopping 637% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
Radeon E8950 Radeon E8950
K1000M K1000M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking433986
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.20
Power efficiency10.683.06
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameAmethystGK107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date29 September 2015 (10 years ago)1 June 2012 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$119.90

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores2048192
Core clock speed735 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,000 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate128.013.60
Floating-point processing power4.096 TFLOPS0.3264 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12816
L1 Cache512 KB16 KB
L2 Cache512 KB256 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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)MXM-A (3.0)
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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/s28.8 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-+

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:

900p65−70
+622%
9
−622%
Full HD130−140
+622%
18
−622%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data6.66

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how Radeon E8950 and K1000M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon E8950 is 622% faster in 900p
  • Radeon E8950 is 622% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 52 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 13.11 1.78
Recency 29 September 2015 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 45 Watt

Radeon E8950 has a 637% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

K1000M, on the other hand, has 111% lower power consumption.

The Radeon E8950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon E8950 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Radeon E8950 Radeon E8950
vs
GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
K1000M Quadro K1000M
vs
Quadro 2000M Quadro 2000M
Radeon E8950 Radeon E8950
vs
GeForce MX570 GeForce MX570
Playstation 4 Pro GPU Playstation 4 Pro GPU
vs
RX Vega Mobile RX Vega Mobile
Playstation 4 Pro GPU Playstation 4 Pro GPU
vs
UHD Graphics G7 64EU Mobile UHD Graphics G7 64EU Mobile
R5 M420 R5 M420
vs
Arc 5 A550M Arc 5 A550M
R5 M435 R5 M435
vs
GT 555M 3 GB GT 555M 3 GB
R7 M465 R7 M465
vs
R7 M460 R7 M460
R7 M350 R7 M350
vs
Tesla X2070 Tesla X2070
R9 M360 R9 M360
vs
G210 OEM G210 OEM
R9 M360 R9 M360
vs
RTX A2000 Max-Q RTX A2000 Max-Q
R9 M395X Mac Edition R9 M395X Mac Edition
vs
RX 7600M RX 7600M
R9 M295X Mac Edition R9 M295X Mac Edition
vs
8800 GT Mac Edition 8800 GT Mac Edition

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.6 14 votes

Rate Radeon E8950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 102 votes

Rate Quadro K1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon E8950 or Quadro K1000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.