Quadro T1200 Mobile vs Quadro NVS 135M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 135M and Quadro T1200 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
T1200 Mobile outperforms NVS 135M by a whopping 14685% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1445 | 300 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.90 | 74.12 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G86 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 9 May 2007 (17 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (3 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 | 16 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 855 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1425 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 91.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0256 TFLOPS | 2.918 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 64 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 594 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 9.504 GB/s | 160.0 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 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 7.5 |
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 | -0−1 | 58 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 33 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 81 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14186%
|
1000−1050
+14186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14186%
|
1000−1050
+14186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−1050%
|
65−70
+1050%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−456%
|
130−140
+456%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14186%
|
1000−1050
+14186%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−2150%
|
220−230
+2150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1325%
|
114
+1325%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−1050%
|
65−70
+1050%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−2267%
|
71
+2267%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−456%
|
130−140
+456%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14186%
|
1000−1050
+14186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1238%
|
107
+1238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−1050%
|
65−70
+1050%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1133%
|
37
+1133%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−14500%
|
3650−3700
+14500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 45−50 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−120%
|
30−35
+120%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−10200%
|
100−110
+10200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T1200 Mobile is 10200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T1200 Mobile is ahead in 18 tests (41%)
- there's a draw in 26 tests (59%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.13 | 19.22 |
| Recency | 9 May 2007 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 18 Watt |
NVS 135M has 80% lower power consumption.
T1200 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 14684.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T1200 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 135M 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.
