Quadro K1000M vs Radeon Pro 560X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 560X and Quadro K1000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro 560X
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
9.53
+372%

Pro 560X outperforms K1000M by a whopping 372% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking456884
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.38
ArchitecturePolaris (2016−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code namePolaris 21N14P-Q1
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date5 June 2017 (7 years ago)1 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$119.90

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1024192
Core clock speed907 MHz850 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate64.2613.60
Floating-point performance2.056 gflops0.3264 gflops

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5080 MHz1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.28 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.

FreeSync+-
Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-+

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.

Pro 560X 9.53
+372%
K1000M 2.02

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.

Pro 560X 3677
+372%
K1000M 779

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.

Pro 560X 7590
+589%
K1000M 1102

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.

Pro 560X 17536
+923%
K1000M 1715

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Pro 560X 16871
+1018%
K1000M 1509

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:

900p40−45
+344%
9
−344%
Full HD42
+133%
18
−133%
1440p34
+386%
7−8
−386%
4K14
+600%
2−3
−600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 31
+343%
7−8
−343%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Battlefield 5 49
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 29
+480%
5−6
−480%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Far Cry 5 28
+833%
3−4
−833%
Far Cry New Dawn 38
+660%
5−6
−660%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+700%
8−9
−700%
Hitman 3 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+194%
18−20
−194%
Metro Exodus 41
+413%
8−9
−413%
Red Dead Redemption 2 36
+800%
4−5
−800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 57
+470%
10−11
−470%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+77.1%
35−40
−77.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50
+614%
7−8
−614%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Battlefield 5 42
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 25
+400%
5−6
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Far Cry 5 26
+767%
3−4
−767%
Far Cry New Dawn 28
+460%
5−6
−460%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+700%
8−9
−700%
Hitman 3 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+194%
18−20
−194%
Metro Exodus 33
+450%
6−7
−450%
Red Dead Redemption 2 29
+625%
4−5
−625%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+117%
12−14
−117%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+77.1%
35−40
−77.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14
+100%
7−8
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18
+260%
5−6
−260%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Far Cry 5 19
+533%
3−4
−533%
Forza Horizon 4 36
+350%
8−9
−350%
Hitman 3 18−20
+157%
7−8
−157%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+194%
18−20
−194%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+210%
10−11
−210%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+66.7%
12−14
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+77.1%
35−40
−77.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 25
+525%
4−5
−525%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+413%
8−9
−413%
Hitman 3 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+445%
10−12
−445%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16
+220%
5−6
−220%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+400%
8−9
−400%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

This is how Pro 560X and K1000M compete in popular games:

  • Pro 560X is 344% faster in 900p
  • Pro 560X is 133% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 560X is 386% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 560X is 600% faster in 4K

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Pro 560X is 4800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Pro 560X surpassed K1000M in all 53 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.53 2.02
Recency 5 June 2017 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 45 Watt

Pro 560X has a 371.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 28.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 560X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1000M 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.


AMD Radeon Pro 560X
Radeon Pro 560X
NVIDIA Quadro K1000M
Quadro K1000M

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.


3.7 176 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 560X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 75 votes

Rate Quadro K1000M 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.