Quadro T1000 Max-Q vs 1000M
Aggregated performance score
T1000 Max-Q outperforms 1000M by 1082% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 938 | 290 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.12 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | Fermi | N19P-Q1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $174.95 | no data |
| Current price | $129 (0.7x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 795 / 1230 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1455 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 35 - 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 75.60 |
| Floating-point performance | 268.8 gflops | no data |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Quadro 1000M and Quadro T1000 Max-Q compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 80 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
T1000 Max-Q outperforms 1000M by 1082% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
T1000 Max-Q outperforms 1000M by 1082% in Passmark.
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 | 41
−998%
| 450−500
+998%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
−350%
|
45−50
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−6000%
|
60−65
+6000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−2350%
|
45−50
+2350%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−3600%
|
35−40
+3600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−429%
|
35−40
+429%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
−350%
|
45−50
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−6000%
|
60−65
+6000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−2350%
|
45−50
+2350%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−3600%
|
35−40
+3600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−429%
|
35−40
+429%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−825%
|
35−40
+825%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−6000%
|
60−65
+6000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−825%
|
35−40
+825%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−600%
|
27−30
+600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−188%
|
21−24
+188%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
−340%
|
21−24
+340%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1350%
|
27−30
+1350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 9−10 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 9−10 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
This is how Quadro 1000M and T1000 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- T1000 Max-Q is 998% faster than Quadro 1000M in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the T1000 Max-Q is 6000% faster than the Quadro 1000M.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, T1000 Max-Q surpassed Quadro 1000M in all 32 of our tests.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 1.47 | 17.37 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 35 Watt |
The Quadro T1000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 1000M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
