Radeon Vega 7 vs Quadro T1000 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro T1000 Max-Q with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
T1000 Max-Q outperforms Vega 7 by a whopping 133% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 383 | 613 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 18 |
| Power efficiency | 24.28 | 11.57 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (7 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 896 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 765 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 75.60 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.419 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 56 | 28 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 50−55
+127%
| 22
−127%
|
| 1440p | 65−70
+132%
| 28
−132%
|
| 4K | 40−45
+122%
| 18
−122%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+162%
|
30−35
−162%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18
−88.9%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+143%
|
28
−143%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+162%
|
30−35
−162%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+143%
|
14
−143%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+160%
|
20
−160%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+39.7%
|
63
−39.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+78.4%
|
37
−78.4%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+136%
|
24−27
−136%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+74%
|
70−75
−74%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+196%
|
23
−196%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+162%
|
30−35
−162%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+257%
|
58
−257%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+240%
|
10
−240%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+145%
|
40−45
−145%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+189%
|
18
−189%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+226%
|
27
−226%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+88.6%
|
35
−88.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+247%
|
17
−247%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+154%
|
13
−154%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+157%
|
23
−157%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+139%
|
18
−139%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+74%
|
73
−74%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+224%
|
21
−224%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+278%
|
9
−278%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+145%
|
40−45
−145%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+189%
|
18
−189%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+144%
|
27
−144%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+136%
|
24−27
−136%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+231%
|
13
−231%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+408%
|
25
−408%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+529%
|
14
−529%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+125%
|
50−55
−125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+260%
|
40−45
−260%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+206%
|
48
−206%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+275%
|
12−14
−275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+70.6%
|
16−18
−70.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+216%
|
25
−216%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+138%
|
24−27
−138%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+155%
|
10−12
−155%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
This is how T1000 Max-Q and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- T1000 Max-Q is 127% faster in 1080p
- T1000 Max-Q is 132% faster in 1440p
- T1000 Max-Q is 122% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the T1000 Max-Q is 529% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, T1000 Max-Q surpassed Vega 7 in all 60 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.69 | 6.73 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
T1000 Max-Q has a 133% higher aggregate performance score.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 71% more advanced lithography process, and 11% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T1000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Vega 7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro T1000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon Vega 7 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
