Quadro M1000M vs Radeon R9 270

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 270 with Quadro M1000M, including specs and performance data.

R9 270
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
11.16
+51%

R9 270 outperforms M1000M by an impressive 51% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking420530
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.883.75
Power efficiency5.1912.88
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code nameCuracaoGM107
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 November 2013 (11 years ago)18 August 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$179 $200.89

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 270 has 30% better value for money than M1000M.

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 cores1280512
Core clock speedno data993 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz1072 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate74.0031.78
Floating-point processing power2.368 TFLOPS1.017 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs8032

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB/4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s80 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data
Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.2
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.

R9 270 11.16
+51%
M1000M 7.39

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.

R9 270 4306
+50.9%
M1000M 2853

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.

R9 270 5930
+69.5%
M1000M 3498

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 HD55−60
+41%
39
−41%
4K18−20
+38.5%
13
−38.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.255.15
4K9.9415.45

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hitman 3 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hitman 3 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+0%
62
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hitman 3 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hitman 3 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7
+0%
7
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

This is how R9 270 and M1000M compete in popular games:

  • R9 270 is 41% faster in 1080p
  • R9 270 is 38% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.16 7.39
Recency 13 November 2013 18 August 2015
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 40 Watt

R9 270 has a 51% higher aggregate performance score.

M1000M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 275% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 270 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 270 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.

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 R9 270
Radeon R9 270
NVIDIA Quadro M1000M
Quadro M1000M

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.


3.9 598 votes

Rate Radeon R9 270 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 540 votes

Rate Quadro M1000M 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.