Quadro T1000 vs GeForce GT 1030

Place in the ranking	580	328
Place by popularity	33	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.31	no data
Power efficiency	14.67	23.20
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GP108	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	17 May 2017 (7 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$79	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	384	no data
Core clock speed	1228 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	1468 MHz	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	1,800 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	35.23	no data
Floating-point processing power	1.127 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	16	no data
TMUs	24	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x4	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	145 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
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	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48.06 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	no data
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	1.2.131	-
CUDA	6.1	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark 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.

GT 1030 6.38

Quadro T1000 16.82
+164%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

GT 1030 2454

Quadro T1000 6465
+163%

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.

GT 1030 9807

Quadro T1000 33821
+245%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

GT 1030 9541

Quadro T1000 29927
+214%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

GT 1030 10307

Quadro T1000 34236
+232%

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	24 −150%	60−65 +150%
1440p	26 −150%	65−70 +150%
4K	9 −133%	21−24 +133%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.29	no data
1440p	3.04	no data
4K	8.78	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 −133%	35−40 +133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21 −162%	55−60 +162%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	10 −140%	24−27 +140%
Forza Horizon 4	28 −150%	70−75 +150%
Forza Horizon 5	17 −135%	40−45 +135%
Metro Exodus	23 −161%	60−65 +161%
Red Dead Redemption 2	31 −158%	80−85 +158%
Valorant	18 −150%	45−50 +150%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 −157%	18−20 +157%
Dota 2	19 −163%	50−55 +163%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%
Fortnite	35−40 −163%	100−105 +163%
Forza Horizon 4	19 −163%	50−55 +163%
Forza Horizon 5	14 −150%	35−40 +150%
Grand Theft Auto V	29 −159%	75−80 +159%
Metro Exodus	14 −150%	35−40 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	63 −154%	160−170 +154%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 −163%	50−55 +163%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Valorant	15 −133%	35−40 +133%
World of Tanks	100−105 −160%	260−270 +160%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Dota 2	21−24 −150%	55−60 +150%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%
Forza Horizon 4	16 −150%	40−45 +150%
Forza Horizon 5	11 −145%	27−30 +145%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	19 −163%	50−55 +163%
Valorant	14 −150%	35−40 +150%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Grand Theft Auto V	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −157%	95−100 +157%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
World of Tanks	45−50 −161%	120−130 +161%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 −145%	27−30 +145%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −158%	80−85 +158%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Forza Horizon 4	11 −145%	27−30 +145%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%
Valorant	16−18 −135%	40−45 +135%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	12 −150%	30−33 +150%
Grand Theft Auto V	12 −150%	30−33 +150%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 −150%	45−50 +150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 −150%	30−33 +150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Dota 2	16−18 −135%	40−45 +135%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Fortnite	4 −150%	10−11 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	6 −133%	14−16 +133%
Forza Horizon 5	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Valorant	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%

This is how GT 1030 and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

Quadro T1000 is 150% faster in 1080p
Quadro T1000 is 150% faster in 1440p
Quadro T1000 is 133% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.38	16.82
Recency	17 May 2017	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	50 Watt

GT 1030 has 66.7% lower power consumption.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 163.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 1030 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 1030 is a desktop 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.