Quadro M1000M vs Radeon 8050S
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 8050S with Quadro M1000M, including specs and performance data.
8050S outperforms M1000M by a whopping 462% 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 | 125 | 578 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.70 |
| Power efficiency | 52.76 | 12.91 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Strix Halo | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago) | 18 August 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $200.89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2048 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1295 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2335 MHz | 1072 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 34,000 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 298.9 | 31.78 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.564 TFLOPS | 1.017 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB/4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 80 GB/s |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | + |
| CUDA | - | 5.0 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 95
+144%
| 39
−144%
|
| 4K | 70−75
+438%
| 13
−438%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.15 |
| 4K | no data | 15.45 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+536%
|
14−16
−536%
|
| God of War | 90−95
+557%
|
14−16
−557%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+337%
|
30−33
−337%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+536%
|
14−16
−536%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+355%
|
21−24
−355%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+293%
|
40−45
−293%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+374%
|
30−35
−374%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+500%
|
20−22
−500%
|
| God of War | 90−95
+557%
|
14−16
−557%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+500%
|
24−27
−500%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+201%
|
70−75
−201%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+337%
|
30−33
−337%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+148%
|
110−120
−148%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+536%
|
14−16
−536%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+336%
|
21−24
−336%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+293%
|
40−45
−293%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+374%
|
30−35
−374%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+500%
|
20−22
−500%
|
| God of War | 90−95
+557%
|
14−16
−557%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 118
+372%
|
24−27
−372%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90−95
+600%
|
12−14
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+500%
|
24−27
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 156
+721%
|
19
−721%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+201%
|
70−75
−201%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+337%
|
30−33
−337%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+536%
|
14−16
−536%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85
+286%
|
21−24
−286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+374%
|
30−35
−374%
|
| God of War | 90−95
+557%
|
14−16
−557%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+500%
|
24−27
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 92
+736%
|
11
−736%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 160−170
+293%
|
40−45
−293%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+400%
|
50−55
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+863%
|
8−9
−863%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+700%
|
7−8
−700%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+231%
|
75−80
−231%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+654%
|
12−14
−654%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+780%
|
5−6
−780%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+557%
|
14−16
−557%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+575%
|
16−18
−575%
|
| God of War | 50−55
+614%
|
7−8
−614%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+700%
|
9−10
−700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−105
+614%
|
14−16
−614%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 80−85
+350%
|
18−20
−350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+757%
|
7
−757%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+563%
|
35−40
−563%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+900%
|
6−7
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+733%
|
6−7
−733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+555%
|
10−12
−555%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+629%
|
7−8
−629%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 8050S and M1000M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 8050S is 144% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 8050S is 438% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 8050S is 1650% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 8050S is ahead in 54 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (14%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.09 | 6.78 |
| Recency | 6 January 2025 | 18 August 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 40 Watt |
Radeon 8050S has a 461.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
M1000M, on the other hand, has 37.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 8050S is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 8050S is a notebook graphics card while Quadro M1000M 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.
