Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) vs Quadro T1000 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro T1000 Max-Q with Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000), including specs and performance data.
T1000 Max-Q outperforms RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) by an impressive 96% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 323 | 499 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 31 |
| Power efficiency | 24.10 | 41.00 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Vega |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) | 7 January 2020 (5 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 | 896 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 765 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 2100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 75.60 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.419 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 56 | no 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | no data |
| 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 data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | - |
| CUDA | 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 | 40−45
+81.8%
| 22
−81.8%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
+76.5%
| 17
−76.5%
|
| 4K | 18−20
+80%
| 10
−80%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24
−79.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+131%
|
13
−131%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18
−88.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+126%
|
19
−126%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+79.5%
|
39
−79.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+233%
|
9
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+162%
|
13
−162%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+167%
|
21
−167%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+91.5%
|
47
−91.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+83.8%
|
35−40
−83.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+114%
|
21
−114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+54.8%
|
80−85
−54.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+291%
|
11
−291%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+112%
|
33
−112%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+233%
|
9
−233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+342%
|
48
−342%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+278%
|
9
−278%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+94.1%
|
51
−94.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+180%
|
20
−180%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+190%
|
31
−190%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+83.8%
|
35−40
−83.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+246%
|
13
−246%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+226%
|
19
−226%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+119%
|
16
−119%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+114%
|
21
−114%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+54.8%
|
80−85
−54.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+133%
|
30
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+278%
|
9
−278%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+106%
|
48
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+195%
|
19
−195%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+83.8%
|
35−40
−83.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+221%
|
14
−221%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+221%
|
14
−221%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+251%
|
37
−251%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+400%
|
18
−400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+476%
|
21
−476%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+200%
|
9
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+110%
|
10
−110%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+632%
|
22
−632%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+71.6%
|
95−100
−71.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+124%
|
21
−124%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+200%
|
5
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+131%
|
16
−131%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+105%
|
20−22
−105%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+118%
|
16−18
−118%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+200%
|
10
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+117%
|
6
−117%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+114%
|
40−45
−114%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+222%
|
18
−222%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+125%
|
8
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
This is how T1000 Max-Q and RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) compete in popular games:
- T1000 Max-Q is 82% faster in 1080p
- T1000 Max-Q is 76% faster in 1440p
- T1000 Max-Q is 80% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the T1000 Max-Q is 632% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, T1000 Max-Q surpassed RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in all 67 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.36 | 8.86 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 7 January 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 15 Watt |
T1000 Max-Q has a 95.9% higher aggregate performance score.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T1000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro T1000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
