Tesla T4 vs Quadro M1200

Place in the ranking	504	203
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	12.88	27.49
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GM107	TU104
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	11 January 2017 (8 years ago)	13 September 2018 (6 years ago)

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	640	2560
Core clock speed	1093 MHz	585 MHz
Boost clock speed	1150 MHz	1590 MHz
Number of transistors	1,870 million	13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	70 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.72	254.4
Floating-point processing power	1.399 TFLOPS	8.141 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	40	160
Tensor Cores	no data	320
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	40

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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	320.0 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
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	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12	12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
CUDA	5.0	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. 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.

Quadro M1200 8.42

Tesla T4 27.95
+232%

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.

Quadro M1200 3236

Tesla T4 10744
+232%

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.

Quadro M1200 10019

Tesla T4 61276
+512%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro M1200 10296

Tesla T4 70627
+586%

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	32 −213%	100−110 +213%
4K	11 −218%	35−40 +218%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −213%	50−55 +213%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −213%	50−55 +213%
Elden Ring	21−24 −226%	75−80 +226%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −215%	85−90 +215%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −213%	50−55 +213%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −213%	50−55 +213%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −224%	110−120 +224%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −218%	70−75 +218%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −226%	75−80 +226%
Valorant	30−33 −217%	95−100 +217%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −215%	85−90 +215%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −213%	50−55 +213%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −213%	50−55 +213%
Dota 2	30−33 −217%	95−100 +217%
Elden Ring	21−24 −226%	75−80 +226%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −206%	110−120 +206%
Fortnite	45−50 −227%	160−170 +227%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −224%	110−120 +224%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 −217%	95−100 +217%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −218%	70−75 +218%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −228%	220−230 +228%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −226%	75−80 +226%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −227%	85−90 +227%
Valorant	30−33 −217%	95−100 +217%
World of Tanks	120−130 −217%	400−450 +217%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −215%	85−90 +215%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −213%	50−55 +213%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −213%	50−55 +213%
Dota 2	30−33 −217%	95−100 +217%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −206%	110−120 +206%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −224%	110−120 +224%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −228%	220−230 +228%
Valorant	30−33 −217%	95−100 +217%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Elden Ring	10−12 −218%	35−40 +218%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −210%	130−140 +210%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −200%	21−24 +200%
World of Tanks	60−65 −228%	200−210 +228%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −200%	45−50 +200%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −200%	18−20 +200%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −206%	55−60 +206%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −224%	55−60 +224%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −221%	45−50 +221%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Valorant	21−24 −210%	65−70 +210%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Dota 2	18−20 −216%	60−65 +216%
Elden Ring	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −216%	60−65 +216%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −213%	75−80 +213%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −216%	60−65 +216%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −200%	21−24 +200%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Dota 2	18−20 −216%	60−65 +216%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Fortnite	8−9 −200%	24−27 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −200%	30−33 +200%
Valorant	8−9 −200%	24−27 +200%

This is how Quadro M1200 and Tesla T4 compete in popular games:

Tesla T4 is 213% faster in 1080p
Tesla T4 is 218% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.42	27.95
Recency	11 January 2017	13 September 2018
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	70 Watt

Quadro M1200 has 55.6% lower power consumption.

Tesla T4, on the other hand, has a 231.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M1200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M1200 is a mobile workstation card while Tesla T4 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.