Quadro T1000 Mobile vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
Quadro T1000 Mobile outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by a significant 20% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 347 | 302 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 4.14 |
| Architecture | no data | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | no data | N19P-Q1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (3 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Current price | no data | $1890 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1455 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 69.84 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Apple M1 8-Core GPU and Quadro T1000 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | no data | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Quadro T1000 Mobile outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by 20% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
Quadro T1000 Mobile outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by 34% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
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 | 28
−129%
| 64
+129%
|
| 4K | 35−40
−37.1%
| 48
+37.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
−65.5%
|
48
+65.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
−21.7%
|
27−30
+21.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−19.6%
|
55−60
+19.6%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−33
−76.7%
|
53
+76.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−25.6%
|
49
+25.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
−20.5%
|
45−50
+20.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−19.1%
|
55−60
+19.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
−25%
|
40−45
+25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
−22.2%
|
55−60
+22.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−97.6%
|
83
+97.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
−71.8%
|
67
+71.8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 35−40
−23.1%
|
45−50
+23.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
−19.2%
|
30−35
+19.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
−48.3%
|
43
+48.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
−21.7%
|
27−30
+21.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−19.6%
|
55−60
+19.6%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−33
−70%
|
51
+70%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−76.9%
|
69
+76.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+69.6%
|
23
−69.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−19.1%
|
55−60
+19.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 30−35
−25%
|
40−45
+25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
−22.2%
|
55−60
+22.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−9.5%
|
46
+9.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
−48.7%
|
58
+48.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 19
−21.1%
|
23
+21.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−117%
|
63
+117%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
−19.2%
|
30−35
+19.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27−30
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
−21.7%
|
27−30
+21.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 30−33
−6.7%
|
32
+6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−22.7%
|
27−30
+22.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+25.8%
|
31
−25.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−19.1%
|
55−60
+19.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 45−50
−22.2%
|
55−60
+22.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−2.4%
|
43
+2.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−20.7%
|
35
+20.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
−19.2%
|
30−35
+19.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
−28.2%
|
50
+28.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−22.2%
|
30−35
+22.2%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−28%
|
30−35
+28%
|
| Hitman 3 | 20−22
−25%
|
24−27
+25%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
−36.4%
|
14−16
+36.4%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−21.7%
|
27−30
+21.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
−17.2%
|
30−35
+17.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−29.2%
|
30−35
+29.2%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−16.7%
|
35−40
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−35.7%
|
18−20
+35.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−21.1%
|
21−24
+21.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and T1000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T1000 Mobile is 129% faster in 1080p
- T1000 Mobile is 37% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 70% faster than the T1000 Mobile.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the T1000 Mobile is 117% faster than the Apple M1 8-Core GPU.
All in all, in popular games:
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
- T1000 Mobile is ahead in 69 tests (96%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.06 | 16.92 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 12 nm |
The Quadro T1000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Apple M1 8-Core GPU in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T1000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
