Quadro 1000M vs Tesla C2075

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Tesla C2075 with Quadro 1000M, including specs and performance data.

Tesla C2075
2011
6 GB GDDR5, 247 Watt
7.61
+509%

C2075 outperforms 1000M by a whopping 509% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5491051
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.07
Power efficiency2.482.24
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGF110GF108
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date25 July 2011 (14 years ago)13 January 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$174.95

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores44896
Core clock speed574 MHz700 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)247 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate32.1411.20
Floating-point processing power1.028 TFLOPS0.2688 TFLOPS
ROPs484
TMUs5616
L1 Cache896 KB256 KB
L2 Cache768 KB256 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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length248 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount6 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed783 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth150.3 GB/s28.8 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 Connectors1x DVINo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.02.1

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.

Tesla C2075 7.61
+509%
Quadro 1000M 1.25

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.

Tesla C2075 3364
+507%
Samples: 12
Quadro 1000M 554
Samples: 1107

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Tesla C2075 41
+486%
Quadro 1000M 7

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 HD270−280
+500%
45
−500%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.89

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how Tesla C2075 and Quadro 1000M compete in popular games:

  • Tesla C2075 is 500% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 50 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.61 1.25
Recency 25 July 2011 13 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 247 Watt 45 Watt

Tesla C2075 has a 508.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro 1000M, on the other hand, has 448.9% lower power consumption.

The Tesla C2075 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 1000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Tesla C2075 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro 1000M is a mobile workstation one.

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.


NVIDIA Tesla C2075
Tesla C2075
NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
Quadro 1000M

Other comparisons

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.


3.1 29 votes

Rate Tesla C2075 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 126 votes

Rate Quadro 1000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Tesla C2075 or Quadro 1000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.