Quadro K1000M vs Radeon R5 M335

Place in performance ranking	951	838
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	0.02	0.15
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Exo XT DDR3	N14P-Q1
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	16 June 2015 (8 years ago)	1 June 2012 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$119.90
Current price	$891	$232 (1.9x MSRP)

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K1000M has 650% better value for money than R5 M335.

Technical specs

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	320	192
Compute units	5	no data
Core clock speed	1070 MHz	850 MHz
Boost clock speed	1070 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	690 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	unknown	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	21.40	13.60
Floating-point performance	684.8 gflops	326.4 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Radeon R5 M335 and Quadro K1000M 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	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

Memory

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	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1100 MHz	1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	28.8 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Video outputs and ports

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

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	-	no data
Enduro	-	no data
HD3D	+	no data
PowerTune	+	no data
DualGraphics	1	no data
TrueAudio	-	no data
ZeroCore	+	no data
Switchable graphics	1	no data
Optimus	no data	+

API support

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.0	5.1
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	Not Listed	1.2
Vulkan	+	+
Mantle	+	no data
CUDA	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.

R5 M335 1.41

K1000M 2.02
+43.3%

Quadro K1000M outperforms Radeon R5 M335 by 43% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

R5 M335 548

K1000M 783
+42.9%

Quadro K1000M outperforms Radeon R5 M335 by 43% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R5 M335 4772

K1000M 5165
+8.2%

Quadro K1000M outperforms Radeon R5 M335 by 8% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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%

R5 M335 1784
+61.9%

K1000M 1102

Radeon R5 M335 outperforms Quadro K1000M by 62% in 3DMark 11 Performance 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:

900p	6−7 −50%	9 +50%
Full HD	11 −63.6%	18 +63.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−25%

5−6
+25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	2−3
Battlefield 5	0−1	3−4
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Hitman 3	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	2−3
Battlefield 5	0−1	3−4
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −10%	10−12 +10%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Hitman 3	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 +20%	5−6 −20%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	2−3
Battlefield 5	0−1	3−4
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	1−2
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	1−2

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	1−2
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how R5 M335 and K1000M compete in popular games:

K1000M is 50% faster than R5 M335 in 900p
K1000M is 63.6% faster than R5 M335 in 1080p

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 M335 is 20% faster than the K1000M.
in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the K1000M is 300% faster than the R5 M335.

All in all, in popular games: