Quadro M1000M vs Radeon HD 7950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7950 with Quadro M1000M, including specs and performance data.
HD 7950 outperforms M1000M by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 405 | 536 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.44 | 4.19 |
| Power efficiency | 4.27 | 12.76 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GM107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 31 January 2012 (12 years ago) | 18 August 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | $200.89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
M1000M has 72% better value for money than HD 7950.
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 | 1792 | 512 |
| Compute units | 28 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 993 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1072 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 89.60 | 31.78 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.867 TFLOPS | 1.017 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 32 |
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 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 2 GB/4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 240 GB/s | 80 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| 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.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| 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. 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.
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 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.
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 | 65−70
+66.7%
| 39
−66.7%
|
| 4K | 24−27
+50%
| 16
−50%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.91
−34.1%
| 5.15
+34.1%
|
| 4K | 18.71
−49%
| 12.56
+49%
|
- M1000M has 34% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- M1000M has 49% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how HD 7950 and M1000M compete in popular games:
- HD 7950 is 67% faster in 1080p
- HD 7950 is 50% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.39 | 7.40 |
| Recency | 31 January 2012 | 18 August 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 2 GB/4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 40 Watt |
HD 7950 has a 67.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
M1000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7950 is a desktop card while Quadro M1000M 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
