HD Graphics 2500 vs Quadro M1000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M1000M with HD Graphics 2500, including specs and performance data.
M1000M outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by a whopping 991% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 502 | 1137 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.88 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Gen. 7 Ivy Bridge (2011−2012) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Ivy Bridge GT1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 October 2015 (8 years ago) | 1 April 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $200.89 | no data |
| Current price | $706 (3.5x MSRP) | $521 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
M1000M and HD Graphics 2500 have a nearly equal value for money.
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 cores | 512 | 6 |
| Core clock speed | 993 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1072 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 392 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 31.78 | 6.900 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,017 gflops | 13.8 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro M1000M and HD Graphics 2500 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 | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB/4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 11.1 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.80 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | no data |
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.
Quadro M1000M outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by 991% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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%
Quadro M1000M outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by 1107% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Quadro M1000M outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by 1000% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Quadro M1000M outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by 799% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
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 | 36
+414%
| 7
−414%
|
| 4K | 12
+1100%
| 1−2
−1100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4
−1100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 30−35 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30 | no data |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−12 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14 | no data |
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5 | no data |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8 | no data |
This is how M1000M and HD Graphics 2500 compete in popular games:
- M1000M is 414% faster in 1080p
- M1000M is 1100% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.42 | 0.68 |
| Recency | 2 October 2015 | 1 April 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 22 nm |
The Quadro M1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2500 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M1000M is a mobile workstation card while HD Graphics 2500 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
