Quadro M1000M vs Radeon R7 260
Aggregated performance score
We've compared desktop GPU Radeon R7 260 with mobile workstation GPU Quadro M1000M, including specs and performance data.
Radeon R7 260 outperforms Quadro M1000M by a minimal 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 498 | 500 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.02 | 0.83 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Maxwell (2014−2018) |
| GPU code name | Bonaire | GM107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 17 December 2013 (10 years ago) | 2 October 2015 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $200.89 |
| Current price | $205 (1.9x MSRP) | $706 (3.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R7 260 has 23% better value for money than M1000M.
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 cores | 768 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 993 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1072 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.00 | 31.78 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,536 gflops | 1,017 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R7 260 and Quadro M1000M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 170 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 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 | 2 GB | 2 GB/4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1625 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 104 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | 1 | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| DisplayPort support | + | no data |
| 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 | - | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| FreeSync | 1 | no data |
| HD3D | - | no data |
| PowerTune | - | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| ZeroCore | - | no data |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | + |
| Mantle | - | no data |
| CUDA | no data | 5.0 |
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.
Radeon R7 260 outperforms Quadro M1000M by 1% 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%
Radeon R7 260 outperforms Quadro M1000M by 1% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon R7 260 outperforms Quadro M1000M by 25% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 35−40
−11.4%
| 39
+11.4%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−8.3%
| 13
+8.3%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.47 | 7.42 |
| Recency | 17 December 2013 | 2 October 2015 |
| Cost | $109 | $200.89 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 40 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 260 and Quadro M1000M.
Be aware that Radeon R7 260 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
