Quadro FX 2700M vs 1000M
Aggregated performance score
1000M outperforms FX 2700M by 53% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 938 | 1077 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.12 | 0.02 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Fermi | NB9E-GLM2 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 14 August 2008 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $174.95 | $99.95 |
| Current price | $129 (0.7x MSRP) | $296 (3x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro 1000M has 500% better value for money than FX 2700M.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 530 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 12.72 |
| Floating-point performance | 268.8 gflops | 127.2 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro 1000M and Quadro FX 2700M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-HE |
Memory
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 51.14 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
1000M outperforms FX 2700M by 53% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
1000M outperforms FX 2700M by 54% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
1000M outperforms FX 2700M by 63% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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 | 41
+70.8%
| 24−27
−70.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 1000M and FX 2700M compete in popular games:
- Quadro 1000M is 70.8% faster than FX 2700M in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro 1000M is 100% faster than the FX 2700M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro 1000M is ahead in 20 tests (74%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (26%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 1.47 | 0.96 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 14 August 2008 |
| Cost | $174.95 | $99.95 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Quadro 1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
