Quadro T1000 vs FX 2500M

Place in performance ranking	1173	299
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	8.56
Architecture	G7x (2005−2007)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	G71glm	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	29 September 2005 (18 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99.99	no data
Current price	$126 (1.3x MSRP)	$920

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 2500M and Quadro T1000 have a nearly equal value for money.

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	32	no data
Core clock speed	8 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	500 MHz	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	278 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	90 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.00	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro FX 2500M and Quadro T1000 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-III	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	GDDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	no data
Memory bus width	256 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1200 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	38.4 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	-	no data

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

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	9.0c (9_3)	12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model	3.0	no data
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	no data
Vulkan	N/A	no data

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.

FX 2500M 0.56

Quadro T1000 16.99
+2934%

T1000 outperforms FX 2500M by 2934% 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%

FX 2500M 217

Quadro T1000 6569
+2927%

T1000 outperforms FX 2500M by 2927% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−2900%

90−95
+2900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2900%	60−65 +2900%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −2900%	90−95 +2900%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −2900%	120−130 +2900%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −2900%	90−95 +2900%
Hitman 3	3−4 −2900%	90−95 +2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −2627%	300−310 +2627%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −2900%	240−250 +2900%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2900%	60−65 +2900%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −2900%	90−95 +2900%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −2900%	120−130 +2900%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −2900%	90−95 +2900%
Hitman 3	3−4 −2900%	90−95 +2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −2627%	300−310 +2627%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −2900%	240−250 +2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −2900%	90−95 +2900%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2900%	60−65 +2900%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −2900%	90−95 +2900%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −2900%	120−130 +2900%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −2900%	90−95 +2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −2627%	300−310 +2627%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −2900%	90−95 +2900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −2900%	120−130 +2900%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −2900%	90−95 +2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%