Quadro T1000 Max-Q vs GeForce GTX 580
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 580 with Quadro T1000 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.
T1000 Max-Q outperforms GTX 580 by a considerable 44% 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 | 457 | 365 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.84 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.48 | 24.50 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 9 November 2010 (15 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 512 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 772 MHz | 765 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 244 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 49.41 | 75.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.581 TFLOPS | 2.419 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 1024 KB |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2004 MHz (4008 data rate) | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.4 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| 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 | Mini HDMITwo Dual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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:
| 900p | 53
−41.5%
| 75−80
+41.5%
|
| Full HD | 99
−41.4%
| 140−150
+41.4%
|
| 1200p | 78
−41%
| 110−120
+41%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.04 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−48.4%
|
90−95
+48.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−47.8%
|
30−35
+47.8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−38%
|
65−70
+38%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−48.4%
|
90−95
+48.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−47.8%
|
30−35
+47.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
−43.5%
|
65−70
+43.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−43.2%
|
50−55
+43.2%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
−36.4%
|
90−95
+36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−39.6%
|
65−70
+39.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−45.7%
|
50−55
+45.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−48.8%
|
60−65
+48.8%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−27.5%
|
130−140
+27.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−38%
|
65−70
+38%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−48.4%
|
90−95
+48.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
−28%
|
210−220
+28%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−47.8%
|
30−35
+47.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−26.9%
|
95−100
+26.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
−43.5%
|
65−70
+43.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−43.2%
|
50−55
+43.2%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
−36.4%
|
90−95
+36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−39.6%
|
65−70
+39.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−45.7%
|
50−55
+45.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−45.2%
|
60−65
+45.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−47.8%
|
30−35
+47.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−48.8%
|
60−65
+48.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−51.7%
|
40−45
+51.7%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−27.5%
|
130−140
+27.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−38%
|
65−70
+38%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−47.8%
|
30−35
+47.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−26.9%
|
95−100
+26.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
−43.5%
|
65−70
+43.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−43.2%
|
50−55
+43.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−39.6%
|
65−70
+39.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−48.8%
|
60−65
+48.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−51.7%
|
40−45
+51.7%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−27.5%
|
130−140
+27.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
−36.4%
|
90−95
+36.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−52.4%
|
30−35
+52.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−41.2%
|
120−130
+41.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−68.8%
|
27−30
+68.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−53.8%
|
20−22
+53.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−123%
|
150−160
+123%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−32%
|
160−170
+32%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
−53.3%
|
45−50
+53.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
−54.5%
|
30−35
+54.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−50%
|
35−40
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
−54.2%
|
35−40
+54.2%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−36.4%
|
30−33
+36.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−64.3%
|
21−24
+64.3%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−50%
|
90−95
+50%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−41.5%
|
55−60
+41.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−47.4%
|
27−30
+47.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
This is how GTX 580 and T1000 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- T1000 Max-Q is 42% faster in 900p
- T1000 Max-Q is 41% faster in 1080p
- T1000 Max-Q is 41% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the T1000 Max-Q is 123% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, T1000 Max-Q surpassed GTX 580 in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.07 | 15.96 |
| Recency | 9 November 2010 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 244 Watt | 50 Watt |
T1000 Max-Q has a 44.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 388% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T1000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 580 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 580 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro T1000 Max-Q 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.
