Quadro K1000M vs Radeon RX 460
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 460 with Quadro K1000M, including specs and performance data.
RX 460 outperforms K1000M by a whopping 452% 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 | 501 | 986 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.12 | 0.20 |
| Power efficiency | 10.14 | 3.06 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 8 August 2016 (10 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $86 | $119.90 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 460 has 460% better value for money than K1000M.
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 | 896 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1090 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 67.20 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.15 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 256 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 170 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 28.8 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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 | 45−50
+400%
| 9
−400%
|
| Full HD | 41
+128%
| 18
−128%
|
| 1440p | 50
+456%
| 9−10
−456%
|
| 4K | 20
+567%
| 3−4
−567%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.10
+218%
| 6.66
−218%
|
| 1440p | 1.72
+675%
| 13.32
−675%
|
| 4K | 4.30
+829%
| 39.97
−829%
|
- RX 460 has 218% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 460 has 675% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 460 has 829% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| Fortnite | 116
+1557%
|
7−8
−1557%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+533%
|
9−10
−533%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 36
+227%
|
10−12
−227%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+136%
|
35−40
−136%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+303%
|
35−40
−303%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+255%
|
20−22
−255%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Fortnite | 39
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 54
+500%
|
9−10
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 28
+155%
|
10−12
−155%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+363%
|
8−9
−363%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+136%
|
35−40
−136%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+255%
|
20−22
−255%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 34
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 41
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+136%
|
35−40
−136%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 31
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+477%
|
12−14
−477%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+183%
|
18−20
−183%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+600%
|
14−16
−600%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+350%
|
10−11
−350%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
This is how RX 460 and K1000M compete in popular games:
- RX 460 is 400% faster in 900p
- RX 460 is 128% faster in 1080p
- RX 460 is 456% faster in 1440p
- RX 460 is 567% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 460 is 1667% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 460 surpassed K1000M in all 52 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.83 | 1.78 |
| Recency | 8 August 2016 | 1 June 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 45 Watt |
RX 460 has a 452% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
K1000M, on the other hand, has 67% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 460 is a desktop 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.
