Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs Quadro K1000M

Place in the ranking	883	621
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.37	no data
Power efficiency	3.13	14.25
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code name	GK107	DG1
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	31 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$119.90	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	768
Core clock speed	850 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1650 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	13.60	79.20
Floating-point processing power	0.3264 TFLOPS	2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	24
TMUs	16	48

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 x4

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	LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	2133 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	68.26 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 Connectors

No outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.2
CUDA	+	-

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.

K1000M 2.02

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 5.11
+153%

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.

K1000M 778

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 1971
+153%

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.

K1000M 1102

Iris Xe MAX Graphics 8214
+645%

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 −133%	21−24 +133%
Full HD	17 −58.8%	27 +58.8%
1440p	6−7 −183%	17 +183%
4K	5−6 −200%	15 +200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.05	no data
1440p	19.98	no data
4K	23.98	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−350%

18−20
+350%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −3500%	35−40 +3500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −360%	21−24 +360%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −540%	30−35 +540%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −850%	75−80 +850%
Hitman 3	7−8 −243%	24 +243%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −239%	60−65 +239%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −725%	33 +725%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −270%	35−40 +270%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −94.3%	65−70 +94.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −3500%	35−40 +3500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −360%	21−24 +360%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −540%	30−35 +540%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −850%	75−80 +850%
Hitman 3	7−8 −229%	23 +229%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −239%	60−65 +239%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −700%	30−35 +700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −230%	33 +230%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −142%	27−30 +142%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −94.3%	65−70 +94.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −360%	21−24 +360%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −350%	18−20 +350%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −850%	75−80 +850%
Hitman 3	7−8 −200%	21 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 −44.4%	26 +44.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 −190%	29 +190%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −50%	18 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −94.3%	65−70 +94.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−525%

25
+525%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −633%	21−24 +633%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −467%	16−18 +467%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −450%	10−12 +450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −550%	12−14 +550%
Hitman 3	7−8 −100%	14−16 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 −283%	21−24 +283%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −1000%	10−12 +1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 −555%	70−75 +555%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

−280%

18−20
+280%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−700%

8−9
+700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	5−6
Far Cry 5	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	4−5

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−267%

10−12
+267%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	19 +0%	19 +0%
Metro Exodus	57 +0%	57 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6 +0%	6 +0%
Metro Exodus	43 +0%	43 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20 +0%	20 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +0%	11 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 +0%	11 +0%

This is how K1000M and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 133% faster in 900p
Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 59% faster in 1080p
Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 183% faster in 1440p
Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 200% faster in 4K

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

in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 3500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Iris Xe MAX Graphics is ahead in 53 tests (76%)
there's a draw in 17 tests (24%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.02	5.11
Recency	1 June 2012	31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	25 Watt

Iris Xe MAX Graphics has a 153% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.

The Iris Xe MAX Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Xe MAX Graphics is a mobile workstation one.

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