NVIDIA Quadro K1000M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro K1000M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K1000M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 month(s) later
• 2x more pipelines: 192 vs 96
• Around 29% better floating-point performance: 326.4 gflops vs 253.4 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
• 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
• Around 45% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 779 vs 538
• Around 67% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 250 vs 150
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1162 vs 967
• Around 20% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1162 vs 967

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M

• Around 36% lower typical power consumption: 33 Watt vs 45 Watt
• Around 40% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 2398 vs 1717
• Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 5.055 vs 4.636
• Around 86% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 215.004 vs 115.549
• Around 40% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.635 vs 0.454
• Around 48% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 10.393 vs 7.024
• Around 90% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 19.903 vs 10.485
• Around 63% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2766 vs 1695
• Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 vs 2297
• Around 63% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2766 vs 1695
• Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 vs 2297

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro K1000M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	779 538
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	250 150
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	1717 2398
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4.636 5.055
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	115.549 215.004
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	0.454 0.635
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7.024 10.393
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	10.485 19.903
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1162 967
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1695 2766
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2297 3359
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1162 967
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1695 2766
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2297 3359

Compare specifications (specs)