NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M are both end-of-life mobile GPUs, but they serve fundamentally different purposes. The data shows a clear, multi-faceted victory for the Quadro P1000, which wins 8 of 9 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The GTX 860M secures only a single win in the Vulkan API test, making it a niche performer rather than a general-purpose competitor. The Quadro P1000’s decisive lead in compute, DirectX, and 2D workloads confirms its status as the superior all-round silicon, while the GTX 860M’s lone Vulkan victory highlights a specific legacy strength.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a stark division of labor between these two NVIDIA parts. The Quadro P1000 is the dominant force across nearly every measurable workload, establishing itself as the clear winner for professional and compute-oriented tasks. Its most significant victories come in the Passmark G2D test, where it scores 589 against the GTX 860M’s 226, a staggering 160.6% advantage. This suggests the Quadro P1000 is dramatically better suited for 2D display workloads, desktop rendering, and general graphical interface responsiveness. In compute-heavy scenarios, the Quadro P1000 again leads, posting 1,891 in Passmark GPU Compute versus 1,251 for the GTX 860M, a 51.2% improvement. This makes the Quadro P1000 the obvious choice for GPU-accelerated processing, scientific calculations, and any application leveraging OpenCL or compute shaders.

The GeForce GTX 860M, conversely, finds its only area of superiority in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, it scores 9,648 against the Quadro P1000’s 7,739, a 19.8% lead. This indicates that for legacy Vulkan gaming or Vulkan-based applications that are optimized for its specific Kepler architecture, the GTX 860M holds a distinct advantage. However, this is a singular bright spot in an otherwise one-sided comparison. The GTX 860M’s architecture appears to be better optimized for this particular low-level API, but that advantage does not translate to other modern API tests, where it loses decisively in Passmark DirectX 10 (15 vs 21), DirectX 11 (23 vs 31), DirectX 12 (13 vs 19), and DirectX 9 (55 vs 79). Therefore, the GTX 860M wins only for users with a specific need for Vulkan performance, while the Quadro P1000 wins for everything else.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs explains their divergent performance profiles. The Quadro P1000 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP107 chip manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This modern node allows for a transistor density of 25.0M / mm², packing 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die. In contrast, the GTX 860M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This results in a much lower transistor density of 12.0M / mm², with 3,540 million transistors spread across a massive 294 mm² die. The Quadro P1000’s smaller, denser chip confirms the efficiency gains of the newer manufacturing process.

The core configurations also differ significantly. The Quadro P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 860M, despite having more shading units (1,152) and TMUs (96), has only 16 ROPs. This architectural choice explains the GTX 860M’s higher texture rate of 87.84 GTexel/s compared to the Quadro P1000’s 59.20 GTexel/s. However, the Quadro P1000 compensates with a much higher pixel rate of 47.36 GPixel/s versus the GTX 860M’s 21.96 GPixel/s, thanks to its double the ROP count. The Quadro P1000 also features superior API support, including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the GTX 860M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175 and DirectX 12 (11_0). The Quadro P1000’s display outputs are standardized as 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 860M’s are simply listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile integration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data provides a comprehensive picture of performance, with the Quadro P1000 winning by substantial margins in most tests. The largest single victory for the Quadro P1000 comes in the Passmark G2D test, where its score of 589 dwarfs the GTX 860M’s 226, a 160.6% delta. This is not a marginal win; it is a generational leap in 2D performance. In the Passmark G3D test, the Quadro P1000 again dominates, scoring 4,512 against 3,081, a 46.4% advantage. This indicates that in standard 3D rendering tasks, the Quadro P1000 is significantly faster. Compute performance follows the same trend, with the Quadro P1000 achieving 1,891 in Passmark GPU Compute versus 1,251, a 51.2% lead. Geekbench OpenCL results also favor the Quadro P1000, which scores 13,584 compared to the GTX 860M’s 10,461, a 29.9% improvement.

The DirectX suite of tests further cements the Quadro P1000’s dominance. In Passmark DirectX 10, the Quadro P1000 wins 21 to 15, a 40% delta. In DirectX 11, it leads 31 to 23, a 34.8% improvement. The gap widens in DirectX 12, where the Quadro P1000 scores 19 against 13, a 46.2% delta. Even in the legacy DirectX 9 test, the Quadro P1000 maintains a substantial lead, winning 79 to 55, a 43.6% margin. The only reversal is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the GTX 860M scores 9,648 against the Quadro P1000’s 7,739, a 19.8% win for the older card. This single Vulkan result is the only data point where the GTX 860M outperforms the Quadro P1000, highlighting a specific architectural strength that does not carry over to other APIs.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs reveal several key differences that directly impact their performance and utility. The most obvious difference is in memory configuration: the Quadro P1000 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 860M is limited to 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus, and their bandwidth is nearly identical (80.19 GB/s for the Quadro P1000 vs 80.00 GB/s for the GTX 860M), but the Quadro P1000’s double capacity provides a significant advantage for larger textures and datasets. Clock speeds also differ substantially, with the Quadro P1000 running at a base of 1266 MHz and boosting to 1480 MHz, while the GTX 860M operates at a lower 797 MHz base and 915 MHz boost. This higher clock speed contributes to the Quadro P1000’s superior pixel rate and overall responsiveness.

The power profiles are also distinct. The Quadro P1000 has a 47 W TDP and is listed as a single-slot card with no power connectors, suggesting it can be powered entirely by the PCIe slot. The GTX 860M has a higher 75 W TDP and is classified as an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor), typical of a mobile solution. The Quadro P1000 also features a specific physical dimension of 150 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the GTX 860M has no listed dimensions. In terms of compute capability, the Quadro P1000 offers 1.894 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 860M is slightly higher at 2.108 TFLOPS. However, the Quadro P1000 also supports FP16 at 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GTX 860M has no FP16 capability listed. The production status for both is end-of-life, but the Quadro P1000 was released on 2017-02-06, while the GTX 860M is older, dated 2014-03-09.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M has more shading units with 1,152, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro P1000’s 640. Despite this, the Quadro P1000 wins the majority of benchmark tests due to its higher clock speeds and newer architecture.

Q: Is the Quadro P1000 faster in compute workloads?

A: Yes. The Quadro P1000 scores 1,891 in the Passmark GPU Compute test, a 51.2% advantage over the GTX 860M’s 1,251. It also leads in Geekbench OpenCL with 13,584 versus 10,461, a 29.9% delta.

Q: Where does the GTX 860M outperform the Quadro P1000?

A: The GTX 860M only wins in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 9,648 against the Quadro P1000’s 7,739, a 19.8% victory. This is the sole head-to-head benchmark where it comes out ahead.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity?

A: The Quadro P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the GTX 860M has 2 GB. Both have a 128-bit bus and nearly identical bandwidth (80.19 GB/s vs 80.00 GB/s).

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Quadro P1000 has a significantly higher pixel rate of 47.36 GPixel/s compared to the GTX 860M’s 21.96 GPixel/s. This is due to the Quadro P1000’s 32 ROPs versus the GTX 860M’s 16 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The Quadro P1000 has a lower TDP of 47 W, while the GTX 860M is rated at 75 W. The Quadro P1000 also benefits from a more advanced 14 nm process, versus the GTX 860M’s 28 nm process.

The Verdict

The data overwhelmingly favors the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 for most use cases. If the priority is professional work, compute performance, or modern API support, the Quadro P1000 is the definitive choice. It wins 8 of 9 head-to-head benchmarks, including massive leads in 2D (160.6%), compute (51.2%), and overall 3D (46.4%) workloads. Its 4 GB memory capacity, higher clock speeds, and lower 47 W TDP make it a more capable and efficient solution for demanding applications. The GTX 860M’s only winning metric is the Geekbench Vulkan score, where it leads by 19.8%. This makes it a niche product for users with specific legacy Vulkan requirements.

The average benchmark scores reflect this disparity: the Quadro P1000 has an average score of 3,163, placing it in the 20th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 860M has an average of 2,967, in the 19th percentile. The Quadro P1000’s nearest rival is the Intel Arc Pro B60, which is 0.6% faster, while the GTX 860M sits close to the GeForce GTX 750 Ti, which is 0.5% faster. The verdict is clear: the Quadro P1000 is the superior GPU for general and professional use, while the GTX 860M is only relevant for users who prioritize Vulkan performance above all else. For anyone else, the Quadro P1000’s comprehensive benchmark dominance makes it the only rational selection from this data.