Quadro T1000 Mobile vs Quadro FX 770M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 770M and Quadro T1000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
T1000 Mobile outperforms FX 770M by a whopping 2898% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1221 | 332 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.12 | 23.41 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G96 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 14 August 2008 (16 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $527 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 32 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1455 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.000 | 69.84 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | 2.235 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 48 |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 128.0 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 7.5 |
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.
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 | 2−3
−3050%
| 63
+3050%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−4700%
| 48
+4700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 263.50 | no data |
| 4K | 527.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−1950%
|
40−45
+1950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−314%
|
27−30
+314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1550%
|
30−35
+1550%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−1950%
|
40−45
+1950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−314%
|
27−30
+314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1550%
|
30−35
+1550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1550%
|
65−70
+1550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−743%
|
55−60
+743%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−354%
|
120−130
+354%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−1950%
|
40−45
+1950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−314%
|
27−30
+314%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1118%
|
200−210
+1118%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1550%
|
30−35
+1550%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−936%
|
114
+936%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1550%
|
65−70
+1550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 34 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−743%
|
55−60
+743%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1475%
|
63
+1475%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−354%
|
120−130
+354%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−314%
|
27−30
+314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1550%
|
30−35
+1550%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−873%
|
107
+873%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1550%
|
65−70
+1550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−743%
|
55−60
+743%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−775%
|
35
+775%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−354%
|
120−130
+354%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−11600%
|
110−120
+11600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−5100%
|
150−160
+5100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−3800%
|
35−40
+3800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−93.3%
|
27−30
+93.3%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2833%
|
85−90
+2833%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how FX 770M and T1000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T1000 Mobile is 3050% faster in 1080p
- T1000 Mobile is 4700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the T1000 Mobile is 11600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T1000 Mobile is ahead in 35 tests (55%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (45%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.56 | 16.79 |
| Recency | 14 August 2008 | 27 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
FX 770M has 42.9% lower power consumption.
T1000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 2898.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 441.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T1000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 770M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
