Radeon R7 A360 vs Quadro K1000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K1000M with Radeon R7 A360, including specs and performance data.

K1000M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 45 Watt
1.83
+26.2%

K1000M outperforms R7 A360 by a significant 26% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9411008
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.21no data
Power efficiency3.10no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameGK107Meso
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2012 (13 years ago)5 May 2015 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119.90 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores192384
Core clock speed850 MHz1100 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1125 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Wattno data
Texture fill rate13.6027.00
Floating-point processing power0.3264 TFLOPS0.864 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs1624

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 3.0 x8

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s14.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.0
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.2.131
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.

K1000M 1.83
+26.2%
R7 A360 1.45

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 767
+26.4%
R7 A360 607

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:

900p9
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Full HD18
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.66no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
God of War 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Fortnite 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
God of War 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Valorant 35−40
+26.7%
30−33
−26.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+26.7%
30−33
−26.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Dota 2 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Fortnite 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
God of War 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Valorant 35−40
+26.7%
30−33
−26.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Dota 2 21−24
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
God of War 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Valorant 35−40
+26.7%
30−33
−26.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+28.6%
14−16
−28.6%
Valorant 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
God of War 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Valorant 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
God of War 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how K1000M and R7 A360 compete in popular games:

  • K1000M is 29% faster in 900p
  • K1000M is 29% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.83 1.45
Recency 1 June 2012 5 May 2015

K1000M has a 26.2% higher aggregate performance score.

R7 A360, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years.

The Quadro K1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 A360 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 A360 is a mobile workstation one.

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 K1000M
Quadro K1000M
AMD Radeon R7 A360
Radeon R7 A360

Other comparisons

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.


3.7 90 votes

Rate Quadro K1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 4 votes

Rate Radeon R7 A360 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K1000M or Radeon R7 A360, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.