Quadro 1000M vs ATI Radeon HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 with Quadro 1000M, including specs and performance data.
ATI HD 4850 outperforms 1000M by an impressive 84% 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 | 858 | 1037 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.22 | 0.07 |
| Power efficiency | 1.70 | 2.25 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | GF108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (17 years ago) | 13 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $174.95 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
ATI HD 4850 has 214% better value for money than Quadro 1000M.
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 | 800 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 246 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | 28.8 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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 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.
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 | 28
+100%
| 14−16
−100%
|
| Full HD | 40
−12.5%
| 45
+12.5%
|
| 1200p | 19
+90%
| 10−12
−90%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.98
−28%
| 3.89
+28%
|
- Quadro 1000M has 28% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+23.5%
|
30−35
−23.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+60%
|
30−33
−60%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+47.1%
|
16−18
−47.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+23.5%
|
30−35
−23.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+47.1%
|
16−18
−47.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+23.5%
|
30−35
−23.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+64.3%
|
14−16
−64.3%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and Quadro 1000M compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 4850 is 100% faster in 900p
- Quadro 1000M is 13% faster in 1080p
- ATI HD 4850 is 90% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI HD 4850 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, ATI HD 4850 surpassed Quadro 1000M in all 44 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.45 | 1.33 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 13 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 45 Watt |
ATI HD 4850 has a 84.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro 1000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 144.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 4850 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4850 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro 1000M 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.
