Quadro P1000 vs Radeon Pro 465
Quadro P1000
Popular choices:
Radeon Pro 465
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Radeon Pro 465
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon Pro 465 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro P1000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro P1000 | Radeon Pro 465 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro P1000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro P1000 holds the technical lead. Priced at $80 (vs $150), it costs 47% less, resulting in a 85.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro P1000 | Radeon Pro 465 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+85.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($80) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) |
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro P1000 and Radeon Pro 465
Quadro P1000
The Quadro P1000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 7 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1493 MHz to 1519 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 40W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,495 points. Launch price was $375.
Radeon Pro 465
The Radeon Pro 465 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 30 2016. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 850 MHz to 907 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 35W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4,538 points.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro P1000 scores 4,495 and the Radeon Pro 465 reaches 4,538 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro P1000 is built on Pascal while the Radeon Pro 465 uses GCN 4.0, both on a 14 nm process. Shader units: 640 (Quadro P1000) vs 1,024 (Radeon Pro 465). Raw compute: 1.555 TFLOPS (Quadro P1000) vs 1.858 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro 465). Boost clocks: 1519 MHz vs 907 MHz.
| Feature | Quadro P1000 | Radeon Pro 465 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4,495 | 4,538 |
| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 | 1024+60% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.555 TFLOPS | 1.858 TFLOPS+19% |
| Boost Clock | 1519 MHz+67% | 907 MHz |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64+100% |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB+33% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro P1000 | Radeon Pro 465 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 P1000 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro 465 has 2 GB. The Quadro P1000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Quadro P1000 | Radeon Pro 465 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro P1000 draws 40W versus the Radeon Pro 465's 35W — a 13.3% difference. The Radeon Pro 465 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro P1000) vs 350W (Radeon Pro 465). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro P1000 | Radeon Pro 465 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 40W | 35W-13% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 145mm | — |
| Height | 69mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 112.4 | 129.7+15% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro P1000 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $80, while the Radeon Pro 465 launched at $500 and now averages $150. The Quadro P1000 costs 46.7% less ($70 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 56.2 (Quadro P1000) vs 30.3 (Radeon Pro 465) — the Quadro P1000 offers 85.5% better value. The Quadro P1000 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2016).
| Feature | Quadro P1000 | Radeon Pro 465 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $500 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $80-47% | $150 |
| Performance per Dollar | 56.2+85% | 30.3 |
| Codename | GP107 | Baffin |
| Release | February 7 2017 | October 30 2016 |
| Ranking | #466 | #547 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro P1000 and Radeon Pro 465
