GeForce GT 230 vs Quadro P1000

Place in the ranking	412	1138
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.85	0.01
Power efficiency	20.16	0.78
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GP107	G94B
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	7 February 2017 (7 years ago)	12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$375	$43.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P1000 has 58400% better value for money than GT 230.

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	48
Core clock speed	1493 MHz	650 MHz
Boost clock speed	1519 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,300 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	48.61	15.60
Floating-point processing power	1.555 TFLOPS	0.156 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	24

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	145 mm	no data
Width	MXM Module	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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	96.13 GB/s	57.6 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

Portable Device Dependent

No outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.7	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	N/A
CUDA	6.1	1.1

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 P1000 11.57
+1277%

GT 230 0.84

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 P1000 4464
+1282%

GT 230 323

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	42 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
4K	11	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	8.93	14.66
4K	34.09	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

18−20
+1700%

1−2

−1700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Forza Horizon 4	108 +1443%	7−8 −1443%
Hitman 3	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	53 +1667%	3−4 −1667%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +1600%	4−5 −1600%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Forza Horizon 4	100 +1329%	7−8 −1329%
Hitman 3	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +1800%	2−3 −1800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +1500%	2−3 −1500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +1600%	4−5 −1600%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +1420%	5−6 −1420%
Hitman 3	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +1450%	4−5 −1450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +1600%	4−5 −1600%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35
+1500%

2−3

−1500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7	0−1
Far Cry 5	12−14	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +1733%	3−4 −1733%
Hitman 3	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +1340%	5−6 −1340%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20
+1800%

1−2

−1800%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +1667%	3−4 −1667%
Metro Exodus	10−11	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

0−1

This is how Quadro P1000 and GT 230 compete in popular games:

Quadro P1000 is 1300% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.57	0.84
Recency	7 February 2017	12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	40 Watt	75 Watt

Quadro P1000 has a 1277.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 87.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P1000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 230 is a desktop one.

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