Quadro M1000M vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Apple M1 8-Core GPU with Quadro M1000M, including specs and performance data.
Apple M1 8-Core GPU outperforms M1000M by an impressive 97% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 353 | 529 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.75 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.79 |
| Architecture | no data | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | no data | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (3 years ago) | 18 August 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $200.89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1072 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 31.78 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.017 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
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 |
| Interface | no data | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB/4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
| 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.
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | - | 5.0 |
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 | 28
−39.3%
| 39
+39.3%
|
| 4K | 27−30
+80%
| 15
−80%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.15 |
| 4K | no data | 13.39 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+68.4%
|
18−20
−68.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+109%
|
21−24
−109%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+86.7%
|
14−16
−86.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+94.1%
|
16−18
−94.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+87.8%
|
45−50
−87.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+67.4%
|
40−45
−67.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+95%
|
20−22
−95%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+84%
|
24−27
−84%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+38.2%
|
55−60
−38.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+68.4%
|
18−20
−68.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+109%
|
21−24
−109%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+86.7%
|
14−16
−86.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+94.1%
|
16−18
−94.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+87.8%
|
45−50
−87.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+67.4%
|
40−45
−67.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+124%
|
21−24
−124%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+95%
|
20−22
−95%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+84%
|
24−27
−84%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−82.4%
|
62
+82.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+38.2%
|
55−60
−38.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+68.4%
|
18−20
−68.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+86.7%
|
14−16
−86.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+94.1%
|
16−18
−94.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+87.8%
|
45−50
−87.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+67.4%
|
40−45
−67.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+84%
|
24−27
−84%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+209%
|
11
−209%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+38.2%
|
55−60
−38.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+95%
|
20−22
−95%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+100%
|
10−12
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+167%
|
27−30
−167%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 85−90
+85.1%
|
45−50
−85.1%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+76.9%
|
12−14
−76.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65−70
+176%
|
24−27
−176%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7
−85.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and M1000M compete in popular games:
- M1000M is 39% faster in 1080p
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 80% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 550% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the M1000M is 82% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is ahead in 71 test (99%)
- M1000M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.54 | 7.39 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 18 August 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 28 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has a 96.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Apple M1 8-Core GPU is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook graphics card while Quadro M1000M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
