T1000 vs Radeon HD 7690M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 7690M with T1000, including specs and performance data.

HD 7690M
2011
1 GB DDR3, 20 Watt
2.31

T1000 outperforms HD 7690M by a whopping 739% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking855289
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.1127.21
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameThamesTU117
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date25 December 2011 (13 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 cores480896
Core clock speed725 MHz1065 MHz
Boost clock speed725 MHz1395 MHz
Number of transistors716 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate17.4078.12
Floating-point processing power0.696 TFLOPS2.5 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs2456

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s160.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.06.6
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.23.0
VulkanN/A1.2
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.

HD 7690M 2.31
T1000 19.37
+739%

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.

HD 7690M 909
T1000 7623
+739%

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.

HD 7690M 1141
T1000 11793
+934%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD 7690M 5884
T1000 46318
+687%

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:

900p25
−700%
200−210
+700%
Full HD18
−239%
61
+239%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
−717%
45−50
+717%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−400%
45
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−680%
35−40
+680%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
−717%
45−50
+717%
Battlefield 5 6−7
−1200%
75−80
+1200%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−278%
34
+278%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−680%
35−40
+680%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1967%
62
+1967%
Fortnite 10−11
−890%
95−100
+890%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−591%
75−80
+591%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
−1633%
50−55
+1633%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−483%
70−75
+483%
Valorant 40−45
−241%
140−150
+241%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 6−7
−717%
45−50
+717%
Battlefield 5 6−7
−1200%
75−80
+1200%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−211%
28
+211%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
−416%
220−230
+416%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−680%
35−40
+680%
Dota 2 24−27
−733%
200−210
+733%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1800%
57
+1800%
Fortnite 10−11
−890%
95−100
+890%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−591%
75−80
+591%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
−1633%
50−55
+1633%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
−1440%
77
+1440%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−775%
35
+775%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−483%
70−75
+483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
−700%
64
+700%
Valorant 40−45
−241%
140−150
+241%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−1200%
75−80
+1200%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−167%
24
+167%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−680%
35−40
+680%
Dota 2 24−27
−733%
200−210
+733%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1667%
53
+1667%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−591%
75−80
+591%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
−1633%
50−55
+1633%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−483%
70−75
+483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
−338%
35
+338%
Valorant 40−45
−241%
140−150
+241%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10−11
−890%
95−100
+890%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−567%
20−22
+567%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−744%
130−140
+744%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
−3100%
30−35
+3100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−963%
170−180
+963%
Valorant 18−20
−832%
170−180
+832%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−750%
16−18
+750%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1300%
40−45
+1300%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−840%
45−50
+840%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−1550%
30−35
+1550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−650%
30−33
+650%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−975%
40−45
+975%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−650%
14−16
+650%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−127%
30−35
+127%
Valorant 10−12
−855%
100−110
+855%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 7−8
Dota 2 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−567%
20−22
+567%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−3200%
30−35
+3200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
−533%
18−20
+533%

1440p
High Preset

Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how HD 7690M and T1000 compete in popular games:

  • T1000 is 700% faster in 900p
  • T1000 is 239% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T1000 is 3200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • T1000 is ahead in 55 tests (87%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (13%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.31 19.37
Recency 25 December 2011 6 May 2021
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 50 Watt

HD 7690M has 150% lower power consumption.

T1000, on the other hand, has a 738.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7690M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 7690M is a notebook card while T1000 is a workstation one.

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.


AMD Radeon HD 7690M
Radeon HD 7690M
NVIDIA T1000
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.


3.1 10 votes

Rate Radeon HD 7690M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 64 votes

Rate T1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 7690M or T1000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.