Quadro K1000M vs Arc A350M

Place in the ranking	355	883
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.37
Power efficiency	41.07	3.13
Architecture	Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	DG2-128	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	30 March 2022 (2 years ago)	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$119.90

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	768	192
Core clock speed	300 MHz	850 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.20	13.60
Floating-point processing power	1.766 TFLOPS	0.3264 TFLOPS
ROPs	24	16
TMUs	48	16
Ray Tracing Cores	6	no data

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 4.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)

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	GDDR6	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 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

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 outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.6	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	+
CUDA	-	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Arc A350M 14.73
+629%

K1000M 2.02

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.

Arc A350M 10730
+874%

K1000M 1102

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Arc A350M 31023
+501%

K1000M 5165

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	65−70 +622%	9 −622%
Full HD	35 +106%	17 −106%
1440p	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
4K	9 +800%	1−2 −800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	7.05
1440p	no data	59.95
4K	no data	119.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

27
+575%

4−5

−575%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +371%	7−8 −371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	35 +775%	4−5 −775%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +4500%	1−2 −4500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +480%	5−6 −480%
Cyberpunk 2077	19 +375%	4−5 −375%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +1000%	3−4 −1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +680%	5−6 −680%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1063%	8−9 −1063%
Hitman 3	27−30 +286%	7−8 −286%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +306%	18−20 −306%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +700%	6−7 −700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +875%	4−5 −875%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +360%	10−11 −360%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +117%	35−40 −117%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +371%	7−8 −371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	20 +900%	2−3 −900%
Battlefield 5	45−50 +4500%	1−2 −4500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +480%	5−6 −480%
Cyberpunk 2077	16 +300%	4−5 −300%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +1000%	3−4 −1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +680%	5−6 −680%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1063%	8−9 −1063%
Hitman 3	27−30 +286%	7−8 −286%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +306%	18−20 −306%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +700%	6−7 −700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 +875%	4−5 −875%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	53 +430%	10−11 −430%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +183%	12−14 −183%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +117%	35−40 −117%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +371%	7−8 −371%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16 +700%	2−3 −700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +480%	5−6 −480%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +200%	4−5 −200%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +1000%	3−4 −1000%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1063%	8−9 −1063%
Hitman 3	27−30 +286%	7−8 −286%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +306%	18−20 −306%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45 +350%	10−11 −350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	19 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	75−80 +117%	35−40 −117%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40
+875%

4−5

−875%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +833%	3−4 −833%
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +630%	10−11 −630%
Hitman 3	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +383%	6−7 −383%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +733%	3−4 −733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	37 +640%	5−6 −640%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	85−90 +700%	10−12 −700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24
+360%

5−6

−360%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Hitman 3	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +689%	9−10 −689%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	15 +650%	2−3 −650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +850%	2−3 −850%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+333%

3−4

−333%

This is how Arc A350M and K1000M compete in popular games:

Arc A350M is 622% faster in 900p
Arc A350M is 106% faster in 1080p
Arc A350M is 750% faster in 1440p
Arc A350M is 800% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A350M is 4500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, Arc A350M surpassed K1000M in all 53 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.73	2.02
Recency	30 March 2022	1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	6 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	45 Watt

Arc A350M has a 629.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K1000M 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.