HD Graphics 400 vs Quadro K1000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K1000M with HD Graphics 400, including specs and performance data.
K1000M outperforms HD Graphics 400 by an impressive 73% 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 | 965 | 1138 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.20 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.08 | 13.36 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Braswell GT1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119.90 | no data |
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 | 192 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 320 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 6 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.60 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3264 TFLOPS | 0.1152 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 2 |
| TMUs | 16 | 12 |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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) | Ring Bus |
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 | DDR3L |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
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 | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | + |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 9
+80%
| 5−6
−80%
|
| Full HD | 18
+80%
| 10−12
−80%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.66 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
This is how K1000M and HD Graphics 400 compete in popular games:
- K1000M is 80% faster in 900p
- K1000M is 80% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.78 | 1.03 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 1 April 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 6 Watt |
K1000M has a 72.8% higher aggregate performance score.
HD Graphics 400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 400 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while HD Graphics 400 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.
