Quadro M1000M vs Radeon R9 M385
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M385 with Quadro M1000M, including specs and performance data.
M1000M outperforms R9 M385 by a substantial 37% 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 | 689 | 608 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.73 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 13.12 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | Strato | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (11 years ago) | 18 August 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $200.89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 896 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 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) | no data | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 56.00 | 31.78 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.792 TFLOPS | 1.017 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 56 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 2 MB |
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 | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 4 GB | 2 GB/4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 80 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| 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.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 5.0 |
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.
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 | 27−30
−44.4%
| 39
+44.4%
|
| 4K | 9−10
−44.4%
| 13
+44.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.15 |
| 4K | no data | 15.45 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−47.8%
|
30−35
+47.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−47.8%
|
30−35
+47.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−46.7%
|
21−24
+46.7%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
−40%
|
40−45
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−34.8%
|
30−35
+34.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−31.6%
|
24−27
+31.6%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−21.3%
|
70−75
+21.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−47.8%
|
30−35
+47.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−29.1%
|
110−120
+29.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−28.6%
|
50−55
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−46.7%
|
21−24
+46.7%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
−40%
|
40−45
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−34.8%
|
30−35
+34.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−31.6%
|
24−27
+31.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−35.7%
|
19
+35.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−21.3%
|
70−75
+21.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−28.6%
|
50−55
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−46.7%
|
21−24
+46.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−34.8%
|
30−35
+34.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−31.6%
|
24−27
+31.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+27.3%
|
11
−27.3%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−21.3%
|
70−75
+21.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
−40%
|
40−45
+40%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−36.8%
|
50−55
+36.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−40%
|
70−75
+40%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−600%
|
7
+600%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−38.1%
|
27−30
+38.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−47.1%
|
24−27
+47.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how R9 M385 and M1000M compete in popular games:
- M1000M is 44% faster in 1080p
- M1000M is 44% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 M385 is 27% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the M1000M is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M385 performs better in 1 test (2%)
- M1000M performs better in 56 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.98 | 6.83 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 18 August 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB/4 GB |
R9 M385 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
M1000M, on the other hand, has a 37% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 months.
The Quadro M1000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M385 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M385 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro M1000M 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.
