Quadro T1200 Mobile vs GeForce Go 6800 Ultra
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce Go 6800 Ultra with Quadro T1200 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T1200 Mobile outperforms Go 6800 Ultra by a whopping 5360% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1296 | 297 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.28 | 74.35 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | NV41 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 24 February 2005 (19 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (3 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 | 17 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 855 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 450 MHz | 1425 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 190 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 130 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.400 | 91.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.918 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 12 | 64 |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 160.0 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial) | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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 | 1−2
−5700%
| 58
+5700%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 33 |
| 4K | 1−2
−8000%
| 81
+8000%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−4900%
|
300−310
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1200%
|
35−40
+1200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−4900%
|
300−310
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−467%
|
17
+467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1950%
|
80−85
+1950%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−4900%
|
300−310
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14
+367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−743%
|
59
+743%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1950%
|
80−85
+1950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1786%
|
130−140
+1786%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1320%
|
71
+1320%
|
| World of Tanks | 12−14
−1654%
|
220−230
+1654%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−4900%
|
300−310
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−700%
|
56
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1950%
|
80−85
+1950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1786%
|
130−140
+1786%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4900%
|
100−105
+4900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−133%
|
7
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−925%
|
41
+925%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−5300%
|
270−280
+5300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−5233%
|
800−850
+5233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−120%
|
30−35
+120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−120%
|
30−35
+120%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−627%
|
109
+627%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 114
+0%
|
114
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how Go 6800 Ultra and T1200 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T1200 Mobile is 5700% faster in 1080p
- T1200 Mobile is 8000% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the T1200 Mobile is 1950% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T1200 Mobile is ahead in 21 test (40%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (60%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.35 | 19.11 |
| Recency | 24 February 2005 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 89 Watt | 18 Watt |
T1200 Mobile has a 5360% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 983.3% more advanced lithography process, and 394.4% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T1200 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6800 Ultra in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce Go 6800 Ultra is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T1200 Mobile 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.
