GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER vs Quadro 1000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 1000M with GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4070 SUPER outperforms 1000M by a whopping 5280% 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 | 1041 | 15 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 29 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.07 | 69.12 |
| Power efficiency | 2.26 | 24.82 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | AD104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $174.95 | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 4070 SUPER has 98643% better value for money than Quadro 1000M.
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 | 96 | 7168 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 1980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 35,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 220 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 554.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2688 TFLOPS | 35.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 80 |
| TMUs | 16 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 224 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 56 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-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 type | DDR3 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 504.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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.
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 HD | 45
−382%
| 217
+382%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−6600%
| 134
+6600%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−8100%
| 82
+8100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.89
−40.8%
| 2.76
+40.8%
|
| 1440p | 87.48
−1857%
| 4.47
+1857%
|
| 4K | 174.95
−2295%
| 7.30
+2295%
|
- RTX 4070 SUPER has 41% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 4070 SUPER has 1857% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 4070 SUPER has 2295% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−6433%
|
196
+6433%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−3200%
|
190−200
+3200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−9200%
|
180−190
+9200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−6033%
|
184
+6033%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−6667%
|
203
+6667%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−7450%
|
300−350
+7450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3563%
|
290−300
+3563%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−21000%
|
210−220
+21000%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−3200%
|
190−200
+3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1650%
|
170−180
+1650%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1165%
|
400−450
+1165%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−9200%
|
180−190
+9200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
−827%
|
270−280
+827%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5200%
|
159
+5200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−5194%
|
900−950
+5194%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−6567%
|
200
+6567%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−7450%
|
300−350
+7450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3563%
|
290−300
+3563%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−21000%
|
210−220
+21000%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−3200%
|
190−200
+3200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−17200%
|
173
+17200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−9150%
|
185
+9150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1650%
|
170−180
+1650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−5786%
|
412
+5786%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1165%
|
400−450
+1165%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−9200%
|
180−190
+9200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4700%
|
144
+4700%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−5194%
|
900−950
+5194%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−6233%
|
190
+6233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3563%
|
290−300
+3563%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−3200%
|
190−200
+3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1650%
|
170−180
+1650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2771%
|
201
+2771%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1165%
|
400−450
+1165%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−7450%
|
300−350
+7450%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−5625%
|
220−230
+5625%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−5633%
|
500−550
+5633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1150%
|
170−180
+1150%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−9600%
|
450−500
+9600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 92 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−18200%
|
183
+18200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6350%
|
250−260
+6350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−15300%
|
154
+15300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−7450%
|
150−160
+7450%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1007%
|
166
+1007%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−4629%
|
300−350
+4629%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| God of War | 0−1 | 85−90 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 148
+0%
|
148
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| God of War | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 1000M and RTX 4070 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 382% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 6600% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 8100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 4070 SUPER is 21000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER performs better in 45 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.33 | 71.56 |
| Recency | 13 January 2011 | 8 January 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 220 Watt |
Quadro 1000M has 388.9% lower power consumption.
RTX 4070 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 5280.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 1000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
