Quadro T1000 vs K3100M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K3100M with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.
Quadro T1000 outperforms K3100M by a whopping 189% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 561 | 302 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.55 | 8.74 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | N15E-Q1-A2 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (10 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,999 | no data |
| Current price | $683 (0.3x MSRP) | $920 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro T1000 has 1489% better value for money than K3100M.
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 | 768 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1455 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 45.18 | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 1,084 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro K3100M 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-B (3.0) | 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 | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 3200 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 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 | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | no data |
| CUDA | + | 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.
T1000 outperforms K3100M by 189% based on our aggregate 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 outperforms K3100M by 188% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
T1000 outperforms K3100M by 436% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
T1000 outperforms K3100M by 794% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
T1000 outperforms K3100M by 731% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 38
−163%
| 100−110
+163%
|
| 4K | 15
−167%
| 40−45
+167%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−250%
|
14
+250%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−250%
|
7
+250%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
−213%
|
24−27
+213%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 2−3 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−400%
|
5
+400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 2−3 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
This is how K3100M and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:
- Quadro T1000 is 163% faster in 1080p
- Quadro T1000 is 167% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.86 | 16.91 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3100M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K3100M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro T1000 is a workstation one.
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.
