Quadro M1000M vs Radeon HD 7970
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7970 with Quadro M1000M, including specs and performance data.
HD 7970 outperforms M1000M by an impressive 87% 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 | 445 | 613 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.18 | 1.71 |
| Power efficiency | 3.90 | 13.06 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GM107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 9 January 2012 (14 years ago) | 18 August 2015 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $200.89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
HD 7970 has 27% better value for money than M1000M.
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 | 2048 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 993 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | 1072 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 118.4 | 31.78 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.789 TFLOPS | 1.017 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 2 MB |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 2.1 x16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 275 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | 6 GB | 2 GB/4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 264 GB/s | 80 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| 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 | DirectX® 11 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 (5.1) | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 (1.2) | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | - | 5.0 |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
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:
| 900p | 105
+90.9%
| 55−60
−90.9%
|
| Full HD | 93
+138%
| 39
−138%
|
| 4K | 24−27
+84.6%
| 13
−84.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.90
−14.6%
| 5.15
+14.6%
|
| 4K | 22.88
−48%
| 15.45
+48%
|
- M1000M has 15% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- M1000M has 48% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+106%
|
30−35
−106%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+93.1%
|
27−30
−93.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+106%
|
30−35
−106%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+80.5%
|
40−45
−80.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+74.2%
|
30−35
−74.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+100%
|
20−22
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+84%
|
24−27
−84%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+49.3%
|
70−75
−49.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+93.1%
|
27−30
−93.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+106%
|
30−35
−106%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 212
+92.7%
|
110−120
−92.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+57.4%
|
50−55
−57.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+80.5%
|
40−45
−80.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+74.2%
|
30−35
−74.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+100%
|
20−22
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+100%
|
24−27
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+84%
|
24−27
−84%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+73.7%
|
19
−73.7%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+49.3%
|
70−75
−49.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+93.1%
|
27−30
−93.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+57.4%
|
50−55
−57.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+74.2%
|
30−35
−74.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+84%
|
24−27
−84%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+200%
|
11
−200%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+49.3%
|
70−75
−49.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+80.5%
|
40−45
−80.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+82.7%
|
50−55
−82.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+113%
|
40−45
−113%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+75.4%
|
65−70
−75.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+41.2%
|
16−18
−41.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+143%
|
7
−143%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+107%
|
27−30
−107%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+84%
|
24−27
−84%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+100%
|
10−12
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
This is how HD 7970 and M1000M compete in popular games:
- HD 7970 is 91% faster in 900p
- HD 7970 is 138% faster in 1080p
- HD 7970 is 85% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7970 is 350% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, HD 7970 surpassed M1000M in all 61 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.60 | 6.75 |
| Recency | 9 January 2012 | 18 August 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 2 GB/4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 40 Watt |
HD 7970 has a 87% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.
M1000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and 650% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7970 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7970 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro M1000M 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.
