NVIDIA Quadro 1000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro 1000M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 65 nm
- Around 44% lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 65 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 50% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 569 vs 379
- 4.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 194 vs 43
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 13 January 2011 vs 3 March 2009 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 65 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 569 vs 379 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 vs 43 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
- Around 96% higher core clock speed: 1375 MHz vs 700 MHz
- 2.8x more texture fill rate: 31 billion / sec vs 11.2 GTexel / s
- Around 17% higher pipelines: 112 vs 96
- Around 15% better floating-point performance: 308 gflops vs 268.8 gflops
- Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3085 vs 2327
- Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3085 vs 2327
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1375 MHz vs 700 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 31 billion / sec vs 11.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 112 vs 96 |
| Floating-point performance | 308 gflops vs 268.8 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3085 vs 2327 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3085 vs 2327 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro 1000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro 1000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 569 | 379 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 | 43 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2113 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 5.218 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 207.789 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.52 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 10.149 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 23.677 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 894 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1633 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2327 | 3085 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 894 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1633 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2327 | 3085 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro 1000M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Fermi | Tesla |
| Code name | GF108 | G92 |
| Launch date | 13 January 2011 | 3 March 2009 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $174.95 | |
| Place in performance rating | 1449 | 1452 |
| Price now | $99.95 | |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 8.91 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 268.8 gflops | 308 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 96 | 112 |
| Texture fill rate | 11.2 GTexel / s | 31 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Transistor count | 585 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 112 | |
| Gigaflops | 462 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB / s | 61 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| HybridPower | ||
| Power management | 8.0 | |
| PureVideo HD | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro 1000M with others
NVIDIAQuadro 1000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 260M
NVIDIAQuadro 1000M vs
NVIDIANVS 2100M
NVIDIAQuadro 1000M vs
IntelGraphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3150
NVIDIAQuadro 1000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 7650A
NVIDIAQuadro 1000M vs
AMDRadeon HD 7570M
NVIDIAQuadro 1000M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 630
