Quadro T1000 vs Quadro P2000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P2000 and Quadro T1000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro P2000
2017
5 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
18.90
+12.5%

P2000 outperforms T1000 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking296326
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.64no data
Power efficiency17.3923.18
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGP106TU117
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date6 February 2017 (7 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$585 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1024no data
Core clock speed1076 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHz1455 MHz
Number of transistors4,400 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate94.72no data
Floating-point processing power3.031 TFLOPSno data
ROPs40no data
TMUs64no data

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length201 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount5 GBno data
Memory bus width160 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1752 MHz8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth140.2 GB/sno 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
CUDA6.1-

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 P2000 18.90
+12.5%
Quadro T1000 16.80

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 P2000 7268
+12.5%
Quadro T1000 6461

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 P2000 22913
Quadro T1000 33824
+47.6%

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.

Quadro P2000 23532
Quadro T1000 29927
+27.2%

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.

Quadro P2000 21668
Quadro T1000 34236
+58%

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 HD58
+16%
50−55
−16%
1440p20
+25%
16−18
−25%
4K17
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.09no data
1440p29.25no data
4K34.41no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Elden Ring 60−65
+20%
50−55
−20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+20%
50−55
−20%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+12.9%
70−75
−12.9%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+13.3%
45−50
−13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+25.7%
35−40
−25.7%
Valorant 75−80
+16.9%
65−70
−16.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+20%
50−55
−20%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Dota 2 34
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%
Elden Ring 60−65
+20%
50−55
−20%
Far Cry 5 72
+20%
60−65
−20%
Fortnite 100−110
+18.8%
85−90
−18.8%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+12.9%
70−75
−12.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70
+21.8%
55−60
−21.8%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+13.3%
45−50
−13.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 137
+14.2%
120−130
−14.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+25.7%
35−40
−25.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+18%
50−55
−18%
Valorant 75−80
+16.9%
65−70
−16.9%
World of Tanks 220−230
+17.9%
190−200
−17.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+20%
50−55
−20%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Dota 2 98
+15.3%
85−90
−15.3%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+16.4%
55−60
−16.4%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+12.9%
70−75
−12.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40
+14.3%
35−40
−14.3%
Valorant 75−80
+16.9%
65−70
−16.9%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 27−30
+20.8%
24−27
−20.8%
Elden Ring 30−35
+14.8%
27−30
−14.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−33
+25%
24−27
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+20%
140−150
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
World of Tanks 120−130
+17.3%
110−120
−17.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+26.7%
30−33
−26.7%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+25%
40−45
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+20%
40−45
−20%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+22.9%
35−40
−22.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+19%
21−24
−19%
Valorant 45−50
+20%
40−45
−20%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Dota 2 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Elden Ring 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 39
+30%
30−33
−30%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Dota 2 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Fortnite 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+16.7%
24−27
−16.7%
Valorant 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%

This is how Quadro P2000 and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P2000 is 16% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P2000 is 25% faster in 1440p
  • Quadro P2000 is 21% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.90 16.80
Recency 6 February 2017 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 16 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 50 Watt

Quadro P2000 has a 12.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T1000 in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro P2000
Quadro P2000
NVIDIA Quadro T1000
Quadro T1000

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 656 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 417 votes

Rate Quadro T1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.