Quadro K1000M vs GeForce GTS 250

Place in the ranking	964	878
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.06	0.37
Power efficiency	0.71	3.11
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	G92B	GK107
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	4 March 2009 (15 years ago)	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	$119.90

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K1000M has 517% better value for money than GTS 250.

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	128	192
Core clock speed	738 MHz	850 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	45 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	44.93	13.60
Floating-point processing power	0.3871 TFLOPS	0.3264 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	64	16

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 2.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	229 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	no data
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1100 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	70.4 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	Two Dual Link DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	no data

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	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	3.0	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	+
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.

GTS 250 1.54

K1000M 2.02
+31.2%

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.

GTS 250 596

K1000M 779
+30.7%

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	6−7 −50%	9 +50%
Full HD	12−14 −33.3%	16 +33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

16.58

7.49

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how GTS 250 and K1000M compete in popular games:

K1000M is 50% faster in 900p
K1000M is 33% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.54	2.02
Recency	4 March 2009	1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	45 Watt

K1000M has a 31.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop 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.