Quadro T1000 vs GeForce MX130
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX130 with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.
T1000 outperforms MX130 by a whopping 257% 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 | 696 | 367 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 11.00 | 23.54 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM108 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 17 November 2017 (7 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 | 384 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1122 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1242 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 29.81 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.9539 TFLOPS | 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 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | 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 | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| 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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 18
−233%
| 60−65
+233%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
−252%
|
95−100
+252%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| God of War | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−233%
|
60−65
+233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20
−250%
|
70−75
+250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
−221%
|
45−50
+221%
|
| Fortnite | 32
−244%
|
110−120
+244%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−233%
|
70−75
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 15
−233%
|
50−55
+233%
|
| God of War | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 23
−248%
|
80−85
+248%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−251%
|
200−210
+251%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−233%
|
60−65
+233%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
−251%
|
270−280
+251%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
−243%
|
120−130
+243%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
−246%
|
45−50
+246%
|
| Fortnite | 24
−254%
|
85−90
+254%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−233%
|
70−75
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−218%
|
35−40
+218%
|
| God of War | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
−233%
|
50−55
+233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21
−233%
|
70−75
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−221%
|
45−50
+221%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−251%
|
200−210
+251%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−233%
|
60−65
+233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
−239%
|
95−100
+239%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−233%
|
40−45
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−233%
|
70−75
+233%
|
| God of War | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
−221%
|
45−50
+221%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−251%
|
200−210
+251%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−253%
|
120−130
+253%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−253%
|
120−130
+253%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−240%
|
160−170
+240%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−253%
|
60−65
+253%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−241%
|
75−80
+241%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−233%
|
50−55
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
| God of War | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
This is how GeForce MX130 and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:
- Quadro T1000 is 233% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.33 | 15.45 |
| Recency | 17 November 2017 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 50 Watt |
GeForce MX130 has 66.7% lower power consumption.
Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 256.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX130 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX130 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.
