T1000 vs Quadro M5000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5000M with T1000, including specs and performance data.
T1000 outperforms M5000M by a small 8% 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 | 353 | 333 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 12.97 | 28.10 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 August 2015 (10 years ago) | 6 May 2021 (4 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 | 1,536 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 975 MHz | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1051 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 93.60 | 78.12 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.995 TFLOPS | 2.5 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 96 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 156 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 | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 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 | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
| 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 Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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.
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.
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 | 84
+52.7%
| 55
−52.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−9.3%
|
100−110
+9.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
−12.5%
|
35−40
+12.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−6.8%
|
75−80
+6.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−9.3%
|
100−110
+9.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
−8.7%
|
75−80
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−10.7%
|
62
+10.7%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
−5.3%
|
95−100
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−8.6%
|
75−80
+8.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
−12.5%
|
35−40
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−9.2%
|
70−75
+9.2%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−5.2%
|
140−150
+5.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−6.8%
|
75−80
+6.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
−9.3%
|
100−110
+9.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
−5.1%
|
220−230
+5.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−7.8%
|
110−120
+7.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
−8.7%
|
75−80
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−1.8%
|
57
+1.8%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
−5.3%
|
95−100
+5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−8.6%
|
75−80
+8.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
−20.3%
|
77
+20.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
−12.5%
|
35−40
+12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35
−2.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−9.2%
|
70−75
+9.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 67
+4.7%
|
64
−4.7%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−5.2%
|
140−150
+5.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−6.8%
|
75−80
+6.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−7.8%
|
110−120
+7.8%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
−8.7%
|
75−80
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+5.7%
|
53
−5.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−8.6%
|
75−80
+8.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
−12.5%
|
35−40
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−9.2%
|
70−75
+9.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+8.6%
|
35
−8.6%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−5.2%
|
140−150
+5.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
−5.3%
|
95−100
+5.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−11.8%
|
35−40
+11.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−7.1%
|
130−140
+7.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−10.3%
|
30−35
+10.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
−3%
|
160−170
+3%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−5.4%
|
170−180
+5.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−8.2%
|
50−55
+8.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
−11.1%
|
40−45
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−10.5%
|
40−45
+10.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−9.5%
|
45−50
+9.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
−10.3%
|
40−45
+10.3%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−9.7%
|
30−35
+9.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−12.5%
|
27−30
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−9.3%
|
100−110
+9.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−6.7%
|
30−35
+6.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
This is how M5000M and T1000 compete in popular games:
- M5000M is 53% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M5000M is 9% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the T1000 is 20% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- M5000M performs better in 4 tests (6%)
- T1000 performs better in 62 tests (94%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.89 | 18.29 |
| Recency | 18 August 2015 | 6 May 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 50 Watt |
M5000M has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
T1000, on the other hand, has a 8.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M5000M and T1000.
Be aware that Quadro M5000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while T1000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
