NVidia Quadro K1000M 2GB Gaming Performance?

Anybody know what the gaming performance would be on the NVidia Quadro K1000M w/2GB? I'm looking at a ThinkPad and was wondering if it would be able to run, say Left 4 Dead 2 on medium settings at a steady 30FPS, or more. Anybody have a benchmark?

 

Its basically a 640m iirc.

 

If it's equivalent, that's perfect. Thanks man.

 

They may be equal hardware wise, but question is, will they perform equally in games?

 

Quadros usually perform a tad worse, but nothing to ruin it.

 

Well I'm just thinking, I don't have the money to upgrade it from the K1000M to the K2000M, but I'd like to know if it would be capable for basic gaming.

 

I don't get it why you just don't buy a laptop with a GT 640M and save money...

 

Cause it's not for gaming. I need a powerhouse that's reliable for 3 years of college and heavy virtualization. I just didn't know if the graphics chip was any good, and thought I'd ask. not that it really matters, it would appear that it can handle some moderate gaming. And that's all I need.

 

K1000M is going to suck pretty hard btw compared to K2000M.
It have half the cores, so if anything, you must aim for K2000M and above if you are going to game with it

 

If they offer any AMD cards you should definitely go with that instead.

 

640 m has 384 cores and k1000M 192 cores, so it should perform worse .

 

How much better though? If it's only a marginal increase while gaming, the $250 price increase isn't worth it. I would like to do some gaming, but gaming isn't a priority. My configuration already totals over $1,700, and I'm trying to keep the cost down.

And the upgrade is from the Quadro K1000M to the Quadro K2000M. Is it worth $250 of a students money?

 

The K1000 performs similar to the Nvidia 630M. The K2000 is about as fast as an Nvidia 650M.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-650M.71887.0.html


http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-630M.63761.0.html


Sent from my HTC One S

 

Don't you have the option of a non-Quadro card?

 

He needs one for school, I guess for 3d rendering and stuff.
A gaming card probably will not help him, as he already stated above.

 

It's not for 3d rendering. There is not an option for a non-quadro card. Only the Quadro K1000M, or the $250 upgrade to the Quadro K2000M. The only reason I would upgrade would be for gaming performance, but this isn't supposed to be a gaming laptop. It's supposed to be a college laptop that might be able to do a bit of gaming on the side. That's why i don't think it's worth the upgrade. I would assume they are both fairly crappy for gaming, and that the difference is not worth $250.

 

If you aren't doing any professional level 3d work, you don't need quadro. All you need for virtualization is enough ram, which is cheap these days. Quadro is a heavy wasted expense for you unless you plan on cad work.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Well I know I won't need it for virtualization, but I was wondering if they would be worth doing any gaming on. Mind you it's not a priority, nor do I have a choice, it can only contain a Quadro, but yeah. I'm going to talk to a sales rep and see if I can upgrade it and still be at the same price (they have a way of making things cheaper, like haggling) but if I can't I don't think I really care.

Would it be worth it to lower from the Intel i7-3720QM to the 3610QM, and up the GPU to the K2000M?

What about an eGPU down the road?

 

Hard to say on the cpu without knowing what the primary use case is.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

virtualization in college. Trying to figure out if I need VT-d or not, via another thread

EDIT: To upgrade the processor from the 3610 to the 3720 is only $85. The K1000M to the K2000M is $250. I'm keeping the processor upgrade, and I will build an eGPU solution if I care that much, and want to spend the money. I just figure I could probably make a better solution for gaming using $250 on an eGPU instead of a professional dGPU

 

I basically went the same route. I ordered the W530 with the 3720 CPU, for the VT-d support, and the K1000M GPU. Based on the high clock speed of the GPU (851MHz according to notebookcheck.net), the K1000M should perform similarly to the Fermi based Quadro 2000M (in my estimation), which is sufficient for my needs. And, it should be more than sufficient to play Left for Dead at High detail over 30 FPS.

Note: VT-d is an important security feature in virtualization, but not a requirement for virtualization. If data security between VMs is of any concern to you, then you should opt for a VT-d enabled CPU.

 

So long as it does not need FP64 performance you are set, if you need that then the fermi solution is significantly faster.

 

Bro get m17x for that money, I am sure 7970m will outperm any quadros except for k5000m, in professional apps

 

Unless he needs CUDA. Then he would need to stick with nvidia.

 

All that he's said is virtualization, which would basically be ANY laptop with a decent CPU, enough HDD, and 8-16GB of RAM.

Why it has to have a Quadro is still beyond me, might be the only option for an edu discount, shrug.

 

The K1000M will perform similarly to the Quadro 1000M, not the 2000M. Despite having twice the shader count, each shader runs at half the speed, which effectively makes them perform at half the rate of last generation.

 

Your right, two Kepler shaders are equivalant to one Fermi shader, but that doesn't make me wrong. The closest Fermi cousin to the K1000M is the 550M with 96 shaders (k1000M has 192) and a 740MHz core clock. The core for K1000M is clocked 15% higher (851 MHz). The 550M already outperforms the 1000M, and with a 15% clock increase and other Kepler optimizations, the K1000M should perform close to the 2000M in most benchmarks.

Similarly, the 640M's closest Fermi cousin is the 2000M, with the same effective shader count (640M has 2x the 2000M) but the core clock on the 640M is 15% higher, which results in a notable performance gain over the 2000M.

If anything is likely to perform similar to the 1000M, it's the K500M.

 

Doesn't the K500m use 64-bit DDR3 instead of the 128-bit DDR3 that the K1000M uses?

 

I'm essentially in the same boat here, however with a slight twist. I WILL be doing quite a bit of 3D CAD work, as well as playing the occasional game. This will serve as my work/school laptop primarily for web/graphic/UI design (hooray color sensor!), and CAD work as a very close secondary task.

Ideally, I'd also like to be able to tote this to the occasional after-work LAN party as well, but it doesn't have to run things on the highest settings. (It will need to run Eve Online reasonably well, but that's just my inner-spaceship-nerd making demands).


Given those requirements, is the K2000M worth the $250 to add to my ThinkPad? If it will significantly increase performance when using CAD programs and make school work smoother and faster, I would consider it.

 

K1000M in W530 is @ 850mhz with memory @ 1800mhz (128bit) with 28GB memory bandwidth

 

The K2000M is roughly double the performance of the K1000M. I'd go for the upgrade, especially since you can't do it later (unless you do an eGPU setup)

 

I almost replied to that same post, but I then noticed it was made in August of 2012.

Weird bump.

 

Oops! I wasn't paying attention :$