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: 567 vs 379
- 4.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 195 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 | 567 vs 379 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 195 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 | 567 | 379 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 195 | 43 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 2123 | |
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 | 1448 | 1451 |
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 |