Quadro K1000M vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4870 X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 4870 X2 with Quadro K1000M, including specs and performance data.
Mobility HD 4870 X2 outperforms K1000M by an impressive 59% 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 | 817 | 965 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.20 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.08 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | M98 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 9 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $119.90 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 800 ×2 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.00 ×2 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.88 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 ×2 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB ×2 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s ×2 | 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| 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.
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.
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 | 14−16
+55.6%
| 9
−55.6%
|
| Full HD | 44
+144%
| 18
−144%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 6.66 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+21.1%
|
35−40
−21.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+44.7%
|
35−40
−44.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+21.1%
|
35−40
−21.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+21.1%
|
35−40
−21.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+69.2%
|
12−14
−69.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 4870 X2 and K1000M compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 4870 X2 is 56% faster in 900p
- ATI Mobility HD 4870 X2 is 144% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 4870 X2 is 350% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 4870 X2 performs better in 51 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.87 | 1.80 |
| Recency | 9 January 2009 | 1 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
ATI Mobility HD 4870 X2 has a 59.4% higher aggregate performance score.
K1000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Mobility Radeon HD 4870 X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 4870 X2 is a notebook 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.
