Quadro 1000M vs K2000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

K2000M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 55 Watt
2.62
+78.2%

K2000M outperforms 1000M by an impressive 78% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking781941
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.280.13
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameN14P-Q3Fermi
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$265.27 $174.95
Current price$92 (0.3x MSRP)$129 (0.7x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K2000M has 115% better value for money than Quadro 1000M.

Detailed specifications

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 cores38496
Core clock speed745 MHz700 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate23.8411.20
Floating-point performance572.2 gflops268.8 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro K2000M and Quadro 1000M 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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)MXM-A (3.0)

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 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1800 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s28.8 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA+2.1

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.

K2000M 2.62
+78.2%
Quadro 1000M 1.47

K2000M outperforms 1000M by 78% based on our aggregate 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%

K2000M 1011
+77.7%
Quadro 1000M 569

K2000M outperforms 1000M by 78% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

K2000M 1798
+90.7%
Quadro 1000M 943

K2000M outperforms 1000M by 91% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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%

K2000M 7947
+74%
Quadro 1000M 4566

K2000M outperforms 1000M by 74% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

K2000M 2867
+34.4%
Quadro 1000M 2133

K2000M outperforms 1000M by 34% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

K2000M 9
+28.6%
Quadro 1000M 7

K2000M outperforms 1000M by 29% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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 HD27
−37%
37
+37%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Hitman 3 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+15.4%
12−14
−15.4%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Hitman 3 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+15.4%
12−14
−15.4%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+15.4%
12−14
−15.4%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

This is how K2000M and Quadro 1000M compete in popular games:

  • Quadro 1000M is 37% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K2000M is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K2000M is ahead in 39 tests (98%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.62 1.47
Recency 1 June 2012 22 February 2011
Cost $265.27 $174.95
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 45 Watt

The Quadro K2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 1000M in performance tests.


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

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 K2000M
Quadro K2000M
NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
Quadro 1000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 31 vote

Rate Quadro K2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 117 votes

Rate Quadro 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.