Radeon Pro W6800 vs Quadro T1000 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro T1000 Max-Q with Radeon Pro W6800, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6800 outperforms T1000 Max-Q by a whopping 203% 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 | 364 | 74 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 11.02 |
| Power efficiency | 24.56 | 14.88 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (6 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 896 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 765 MHz | 2075 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 2320 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 75.60 | 556.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.419 TFLOPS | 17.82 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 96 |
| TMUs | 56 | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 60 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 960 KB |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 MB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 6x mini-DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 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.
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 | 45−50
−204%
| 137
+204%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
−231%
| 116
+231%
|
| 4K | 27−30
−211%
| 84
+211%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 16.42 |
| 1440p | no data | 19.39 |
| 4K | no data | 26.77 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
−180%
|
250−260
+180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−247%
|
110−120
+247%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−117%
|
150−160
+117%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
−180%
|
250−260
+180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−247%
|
110−120
+247%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
−83.3%
|
120−130
+83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−32.1%
|
70
+32.1%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
−134%
|
210−220
+134%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−181%
|
180−190
+181%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−198%
|
150−160
+198%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−182%
|
170−180
+182%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−108%
|
270−280
+108%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−117%
|
150−160
+117%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
−180%
|
250−260
+180%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
−32.4%
|
270−280
+32.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−247%
|
110−120
+247%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
−83.3%
|
120−130
+83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−22.6%
|
65
+22.6%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
−134%
|
210−220
+134%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−181%
|
180−190
+181%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−198%
|
150−160
+198%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
−98.4%
|
121
+98.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
−371%
|
160
+371%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−182%
|
170−180
+182%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−352%
|
199
+352%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−108%
|
270−280
+108%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−117%
|
150−160
+117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−247%
|
110−120
+247%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+15.1%
|
86
−15.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 65−70
−83.3%
|
120−130
+83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−17%
|
62
+17%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
−181%
|
180−190
+181%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−182%
|
170−180
+182%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−257%
|
157
+257%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−108%
|
270−280
+108%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
−134%
|
210−220
+134%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−319%
|
130−140
+319%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−193%
|
350−400
+193%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−226%
|
88
+226%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
−755%
|
171
+755%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
−11.5%
|
170−180
+11.5%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
−88.2%
|
300−350
+88.2%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−161%
|
120−130
+161%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−313%
|
60−65
+313%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−229%
|
110−120
+229%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−77.8%
|
64
+77.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−273%
|
140−150
+273%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−325%
|
100−110
+325%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
−265%
|
130−140
+265%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−362%
|
60−65
+362%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
−317%
|
125
+317%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−323%
|
55
+323%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−330%
|
99
+330%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−218%
|
280−290
+218%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−238%
|
80−85
+238%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−362%
|
60−65
+362%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−383%
|
27−30
+383%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−62.1%
|
94
+62.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
−306%
|
65−70
+306%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−233%
|
60
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−268%
|
100−110
+268%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−388%
|
75−80
+388%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−338%
|
70−75
+338%
|
This is how T1000 Max-Q and Pro W6800 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6800 is 204% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6800 is 231% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6800 is 211% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T1000 Max-Q is 15% faster.
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro W6800 is 755% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T1000 Max-Q performs better in 1 test (2%)
- Pro W6800 performs better in 62 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.92 | 48.24 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 8 June 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 250 Watt |
T1000 Max-Q has 400% lower power consumption.
Pro W6800, on the other hand, has a 203% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T1000 Max-Q in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro T1000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon Pro W6800 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.
