Quadro T1200 Mobile vs Quadro 7000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 7000 with Quadro T1200 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T1200 Mobile outperforms 7000 by a whopping 108% 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 | 540 | 345 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.15 | 74.29 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $14,499 | 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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 651 MHz | 855 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1425 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 204 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 41.66 | 91.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.3322 TFLOPS | 2.918 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 1 MB |
| 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 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 248 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 851 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 163.4 GB/s | 160.0 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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
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 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 2.0 | 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 | 27−30
−115%
| 58
+115%
|
| 1440p | 14−16
−136%
| 33
+136%
|
| 4K | 35−40
−131%
| 81
+131%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 537.00 | no data |
| 1440p | 1035.64 | no data |
| 4K | 414.26 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 114
+0%
|
114
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 7000 and T1200 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T1200 Mobile is 115% faster in 1080p
- T1200 Mobile is 136% faster in 1440p
- T1200 Mobile is 131% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 50 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.38 | 17.42 |
| Recency | 2 May 2012 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 204 Watt | 18 Watt |
Quadro 7000 has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
T1200 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 107.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1033.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T1200 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 7000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 7000 is a workstation 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.
