T1000 8 GB vs RTX A2000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared RTX A2000 Mobile with T1000 8 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms T1000 8 GB by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 213 | 282 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 18.69 | 27.36 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GA106 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 April 2021 (3 years ago) | 6 May 2021 (3 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 | 2560 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 893 MHz | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1358 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,250 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 108.6 | 78.12 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.953 TFLOPS | 2.5 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 56 |
| Tensor Cores | 80 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 20 | 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 160.0 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 | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 8.6 | 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. 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.
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 | 79
+31.7%
| 60−65
−31.7%
|
| 1440p | 43
+43.3%
| 30−35
−43.3%
|
| 4K | 37
+37%
| 27−30
−37%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+34.5%
|
55−60
−34.5%
|
| Elden Ring | 89
+36.9%
|
65−70
−36.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+30%
|
60−65
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31
+47.6%
|
21−24
−47.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 135
+35%
|
100−105
−35%
|
| Metro Exodus | 72
+30.9%
|
55−60
−30.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| Valorant | 110
+37.5%
|
80−85
−37.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+30%
|
60−65
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+38.9%
|
18−20
−38.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 119
+32.2%
|
90−95
−32.2%
|
| Elden Ring | 127
+33.7%
|
95−100
−33.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 88
+35.4%
|
65−70
−35.4%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+34.7%
|
95−100
−34.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108
+35%
|
80−85
−35%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 106
+32.5%
|
80−85
−32.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 53
+32.5%
|
40−45
−32.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+33.3%
|
120−130
−33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 55−60
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+40%
|
60−65
−40%
|
| Valorant | 69
+38%
|
50−55
−38%
|
| World of Tanks | 260−270
+30.5%
|
200−210
−30.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+30%
|
60−65
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 129
+35.8%
|
95−100
−35.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+30%
|
60−65
−30%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+34.3%
|
70−75
−34.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+33.3%
|
120−130
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+37.3%
|
75−80
−37.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 50
+42.9%
|
35−40
−42.9%
|
| Elden Ring | 43
+43.3%
|
30−33
−43.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
+42.9%
|
35−40
−42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+34.6%
|
130−140
−34.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 170−180
+30.8%
|
130−140
−30.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+30%
|
40−45
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+38.2%
|
55−60
−38.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 63
+40%
|
45−50
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+40.7%
|
27−30
−40.7%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+40%
|
50−55
−40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 44
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Elden Ring | 21−24
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+31.7%
|
60−65
−31.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+43.8%
|
16−18
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 72
+30.9%
|
55−60
−30.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+45.8%
|
24−27
−45.8%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
This is how RTX A2000 Mobile and T1000 8 GB compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 32% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 43% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 37% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.73 | 19.83 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 50 Watt |
RTX A2000 Mobile has a 29.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% more advanced lithography process.
T1000 8 GB, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 90% lower power consumption.
The RTX A2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the T1000 8 GB in performance tests.
Be aware that RTX A2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation card while T1000 8 GB is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
