Quadro T1000 vs GeForce 710M
Aggregate performance score
Quadro T1000 outperforms GeForce 710M by a whopping 1326% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1022 | 299 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | 8.55 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | N14M-GL | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 April 2013 (11 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Current price | $44 | $920 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro T1000 has 3188% better value for money than GeForce 710M.
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 | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.50 | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 297.6 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce 710M and Quadro T1000 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Standard memory configuration | DDR3 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 outputs | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 2560x1600 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 2560x1600 | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP content protection | + | no data |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | no data |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | no data |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12.0 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | no data |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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 outperforms GeForce 710M by 1326% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro T1000 outperforms GeForce 710M by 1328% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Quadro T1000 outperforms GeForce 710M by 1276% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−1233%
|
120−130
+1233%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−1233%
|
120−130
+1233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1300%
|
70−75
+1300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85−90
+1317%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1275%
|
55−60
+1275%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 16.97 |
| Recency | 1 April 2013 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 710M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 710M is a notebook card while Quadro T1000 is a 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.
