Quadro T1000 vs GeForce GT 335M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 335M with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.
T1000 outperforms GT 335M by a whopping 1657% 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 | 1170 | 367 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.39 | 23.56 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (6 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 72 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1455 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.80 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1555 TFLOPS | no data |
| Gigaflops | 233 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | Single Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
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 | 16
−1650%
| 280−290
+1650%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1567%
|
500−550
+1567%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1639%
|
400−450
+1639%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1614%
|
240−250
+1614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1567%
|
500−550
+1567%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1614%
|
240−250
+1614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1567%
|
500−550
+1567%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1567%
|
150−160
+1567%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1633%
|
260−270
+1633%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
This is how GT 335M and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:
- Quadro T1000 is 1650% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.88 | 15.46 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 50 Watt |
GT 335M has 78.6% lower power consumption.
Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 1656.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 335M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 335M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T1000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
