Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS vs Quadro T2000 Max-Q
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro T2000 Max-Q with Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS, including specs and performance data.
T2000 Max-Q outperforms Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS by a considerable 49% 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 | 351 | 449 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 31.29 | 28.03 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | no data |
| GPU code name | TU117 | no data |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (6 years ago) | 26 October 2023 (1 year 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 | 1024 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1200 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 103.7 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.318 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 64 | 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 | LPDDR5x |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 8448 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 | 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 | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 | 57
+78.1%
| 32
−78.1%
|
| 1440p | 26
+85.7%
| 14
−85.7%
|
| 4K | 38
+58.3%
| 24−27
−58.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+54.1%
|
60−65
−54.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+52.2%
|
21−24
−52.2%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+54.5%
|
21−24
−54.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+44.9%
|
45−50
−44.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+54.1%
|
60−65
−54.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+52.2%
|
21−24
−52.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+83.3%
|
30
−83.3%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+39.4%
|
65−70
−39.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+43.8%
|
45−50
−43.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+52.9%
|
30−35
−52.9%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+54.5%
|
21−24
−54.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+57.5%
|
40−45
−57.5%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+29.4%
|
100−110
−29.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+44.9%
|
45−50
−44.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+54.1%
|
60−65
−54.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 210−220
+31.3%
|
160−170
−31.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+52.2%
|
21−24
−52.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 124
+55%
|
80−85
−55%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+96.4%
|
28
−96.4%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+39.4%
|
65−70
−39.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+43.8%
|
45−50
−43.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+52.9%
|
30−35
−52.9%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+54.5%
|
21−24
−54.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+80%
|
35
−80%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+43.5%
|
21−24
−43.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+57.5%
|
40−45
−57.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63
+57.5%
|
40
−57.5%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+29.4%
|
100−110
−29.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+44.9%
|
45−50
−44.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+52.2%
|
21−24
−52.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 113
+50.7%
|
75−80
−50.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+112%
|
26
−112%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+43.8%
|
45−50
−43.8%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+54.5%
|
21−24
−54.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+57.5%
|
40−45
−57.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+73.7%
|
19
−73.7%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+29.4%
|
100−110
−29.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+39.4%
|
65−70
−39.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+44.7%
|
85−90
−44.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+86.7%
|
15
−86.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+61.5%
|
12−14
−61.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+130%
|
70−75
−130%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+35.5%
|
120−130
−35.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+56.7%
|
30−33
−56.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+54.2%
|
24−27
−54.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+51.9%
|
27−30
−51.9%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+34.8%
|
21−24
−34.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+56.7%
|
60−65
−56.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+66.7%
|
14−16
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 46
+53.3%
|
30−33
−53.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+63.6%
|
10−12
−63.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+52.6%
|
18−20
−52.6%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+45.5%
|
10−12
−45.5%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
This is how T2000 Max-Q and Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS compete in popular games:
- T2000 Max-Q is 78% faster in 1080p
- T2000 Max-Q is 86% faster in 1440p
- T2000 Max-Q is 58% 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 T2000 Max-Q is 130% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, T2000 Max-Q surpassed Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS in all 62 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.43 | 11.04 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 26 October 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | 30 Watt |
T2000 Max-Q has a 48.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 200% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T2000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro T2000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation graphics card while Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 3.8 TFLOPS 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.
