Arc A770 vs Quadro 1000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 1000M with Arc A770, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 1000M
2011
2 GB DDR3, 45 Watt
1.48

Arc A770 outperforms Quadro 1000M by a whopping 2185% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking988153
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.1255.09
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Alchemist (2022)
GPU code nameFermiDG2-512
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date22 February 2011 (13 years ago)12 October 2022 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$174.95 $329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Arc A770 has 45808% better value for money than Quadro 1000M.

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 cores964096
Core clock speed700 MHz2100 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2400 MHz
Number of transistors585 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate11.20614.4
Floating-point processing power0.2688 gflops19.66 gflops

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x16
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz16000 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s512.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA2.1-

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.

Quadro 1000M 1.48
Arc A770 33.82
+2185%

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.

Quadro 1000M 569
Arc A770 13044
+2192%

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.

Quadro 1000M 4566
Arc A770 103295
+2162%

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.

Quadro 1000M 943
Arc A770 41303
+4280%

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 HD43
−172%
117
+172%
1440p3−4
−2300%
72
+2300%
4K1−2
−4100%
42
+4100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−950%
40−45
+950%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−983%
65
+983%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−1225%
50−55
+1225%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−950%
40−45
+950%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2850%
55−60
+2850%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2133%
65−70
+2133%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−3625%
140−150
+3625%
Hitman 3 6−7
−767%
50−55
+767%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−687%
110−120
+687%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2133%
65−70
+2133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−1000%
85−90
+1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−218%
100−110
+218%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−417%
31
+417%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−1225%
50−55
+1225%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−950%
40−45
+950%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2850%
55−60
+2850%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2133%
65−70
+2133%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−3625%
140−150
+3625%
Hitman 3 6−7
−767%
50−55
+767%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−687%
110−120
+687%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2133%
65−70
+2133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−3125%
258
+3125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−409%
55−60
+409%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−218%
100−110
+218%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−650%
45
+650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−1225%
50−55
+1225%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−950%
40−45
+950%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2850%
55−60
+2850%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−475%
23
+475%
Hitman 3 6−7
−767%
50−55
+767%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−707%
121
+707%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2600%
216
+2600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−555%
72
+555%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−124%
74
+124%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2133%
65−70
+2133%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−2350%
45−50
+2350%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−1850%
35−40
+1850%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−3900%
40
+3900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 27−30
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−1400%
30−33
+1400%
Hitman 3 7−8
−343%
30−35
+343%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−1900%
100
+1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−5900%
60
+5900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−1971%
140−150
+1971%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−975%
40−45
+975%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1900%
20−22
+1900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2900%
30
+2900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−3700%
38
+3700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 14−16
Far Cry 5 0−1 14−16

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−633%
21−24
+633%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 92
+0%
92
+0%
Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 79
+0%
79
+0%
Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 72
+0%
72
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 60
+0%
60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 91
+0%
91
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 158
+0%
158
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 83
+0%
83
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73
+0%
73
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8
+0%
8
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 89
+0%
89
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 37
+0%
37
+0%

This is how Quadro 1000M and Arc A770 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A770 is 172% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A770 is 2300% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A770 is 4100% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A770 is 5900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A770 is ahead in 49 tests (71%)
  • there's a draw in 20 tests (29%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.48 33.82
Recency 22 February 2011 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 225 Watt

Quadro 1000M has 400% lower power consumption.

Arc A770, on the other hand, has a 2185.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 1000M is a mobile workstation card while Arc A770 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
Quadro 1000M
Intel Arc A770
Arc A770

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 120 votes

Rate Quadro 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.8 5165 votes

Rate Arc A770 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.