Quadro 1000M vs GeForce GTX 285M

Place in the ranking	947	987
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.17
Power efficiency	1.51	2.24
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	G92	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 February 2010 (14 years ago)	13 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$174.95

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	128	96
Core clock speed	600 MHz	700 MHz
Number of transistors	754 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	38.40	11.20
Floating-point processing power	0.384 TFLOPS	0.2688 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	576	no data
ROPs	16	4
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	large	medium sized
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	MXM-A (3.0)
SLI options	2-way	-
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	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	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 1020 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	61 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	Single Link DVIVGALVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPort	No outputs
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.

Power management

8.0

no data

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	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	+	2.1

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.

GTX 285M 1.65
+12.2%

Quadro 1000M 1.47

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.

GTX 285M 636
+12.4%

Quadro 1000M 566

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.

GTX 285M 6498
+42.3%

Quadro 1000M 4566

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	21 +16.7%	18−20 −16.7%
Full HD	30 −36.7%	41 +36.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

4.27

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	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +3%	30−35 −3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +3%	30−35 −3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +3%	30−35 −3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
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	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
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
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how GTX 285M and Quadro 1000M compete in popular games:

GTX 285M is 17% faster in 900p
Quadro 1000M is 37% faster in 1080p

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

in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 285M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 285M is ahead in 21 test (43%)
there's a draw in 28 tests (57%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.65	1.47
Recency	1 February 2010	13 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	45 Watt

GTX 285M has a 12.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro 1000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 285M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 285M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro 1000M 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.