Quadro 1000M vs Radeon R9 280X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 280X with Quadro 1000M, including specs and performance data.
R9 280X outperforms 1000M by a whopping 952% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 404 | 1059 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.86 | 0.07 |
| Power efficiency | 4.28 | 2.26 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | GF108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 13 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | $174.95 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 280X has 6843% better value for money than Quadro 1000M.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 11.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 0.2688 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 128 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 256 KB |
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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 275 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin | no 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 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.
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.
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
+44.4%
| 45
−44.4%
|
| 4K | 31
+1450%
| 2−3
−1450%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.60
−18.3%
| 3.89
+18.3%
|
| 4K | 9.65
+807%
| 87.48
−807%
|
- Quadro 1000M has 18% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 280X has 807% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1043%
|
7−8
−1043%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1043%
|
7−8
−1043%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Fortnite | 158
+3850%
|
4−5
−3850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+420%
|
10−11
−420%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+250%
|
30−35
−250%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+1043%
|
7−8
−1043%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+540%
|
30−33
−540%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+435%
|
16−18
−435%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Fortnite | 60
+1400%
|
4−5
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 54
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+420%
|
10−11
−420%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+586%
|
7−8
−586%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+250%
|
30−35
−250%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Dota 2 | 137
+706%
|
16−18
−706%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+250%
|
30−35
−250%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 48
+1100%
|
4−5
−1100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+1078%
|
9−10
−1078%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+843%
|
14−16
−843%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+2820%
|
5−6
−2820%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1233%
|
3−4
−1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+1014%
|
7−8
−1014%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 68
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
This is how R9 280X and Quadro 1000M compete in popular games:
- R9 280X is 44% faster in 1080p
- R9 280X is 1450% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 280X is 6700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 280X surpassed Quadro 1000M in all 49 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.89 | 1.32 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 13 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 45 Watt |
R9 280X has a 952.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Quadro 1000M, on the other hand, has 455.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 1000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 280X is a desktop graphics card while Quadro 1000M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
