Quadro M1000M vs Radeon R7 260

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The Quadro M1000M is positioned at rank #49 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Great cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro M1000M

#23

Intel Arc Pro B60

MSRP: $500|Avg: $450

97%

#24

Radeon PRO W7600

MSRP: $599|Avg: $599

96%

#25

RTX 2000 Ada Generation

MSRP: $625|Avg: $750

96%

#26

Radeon Pro Vega 48

MSRP: $450|Avg: $450

88%

#27

Radeon Pro 5700 XT

MSRP: $500|Avg: $280

87%

#34

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

519%

#49

Quadro M1000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#50

Quadro K5000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $509

99%

#51

Radeon PRO W6300

MSRP: $200|Avg: $150

98%

#52

Quadro K4100M

MSRP: $1499|Avg: $261

97%

#58

Quadro K2000M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $30

88%

#60

Intel Arc Pro A60

MSRP: $380|Avg: $380

88%

#63

T400 4GB

MSRP: $159|Avg: $99

84%

#64

Radeon Pro 5300

MSRP: $300|Avg: $150

83%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon R7 260 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.7% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro M1000M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	Quadro M1000M	Radeon R7 260
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.7%)	✅Leading raw performance (+1.7%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+300%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon R7 260 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Quadro M1000M Benchmark Check

Radeon R7 260 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Quadro M1000M and Radeon R7 260

Quadro M1000M

The Quadro M1000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 18 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 993 MHz to 1072 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,845 points. Launch price was $200.89.

Radeon R7 260

The Radeon R7 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 17 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1100 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 95W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,892 points. Launch price was $109.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Quadro M1000M scores 2,845 and the Radeon R7 260 reaches 2,892 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro M1000M is built on Maxwell while the Radeon R7 260 uses GCN 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 512 (Quadro M1000M) vs 768 (Radeon R7 260). Raw compute: 1.017 TFLOPS (Quadro M1000M) vs 1.536 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 260). Boost clocks: 1072 MHz vs 1100 MHz.

Feature	Quadro M1000M	Radeon R7 260
G3D Mark Score	2,845	2,892+2%
Architecture	Maxwell	GCN 2.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	512	768+50%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.017 TFLOPS	1.536 TFLOPS+51%
Boost Clock	1072 MHz	1100 MHz+3%
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	48+50%
L1 Cache	256 KB+33%	192 KB
L2 Cache	2 MB+700%	0.25 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro M1000M	Radeon R7 260
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Quadro M1000M comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R7 260 has 1 GB. The Quadro M1000M offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro M1000M) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon R7 260) — the Quadro M1000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro M1000M	Radeon R7 260
VRAM Capacity	4 GB+300%	1 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	128-bit+100%
L2 Cache	2 MB+700%	0.25 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro M1000M draws 40W versus the Radeon R7 260's 95W — a 81.5% difference. The Quadro M1000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro M1000M) vs 400W (Radeon R7 260). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.

Feature	Quadro M1000M	Radeon R7 260
TDP	40W-58%	95W
Recommended PSU	350W-13%	400W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	1x 6-pin
Length	—	170mm
Height	—	112mm
Slots	—	2
Temp (Load)	—	80
Perf/Watt	71.1+134%	30.4