Quadro T1000 vs Radeon R5 M255
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M255 with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.
T1000 outperforms R5 M255 by a whopping 1089% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1013 | 335 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 23.18 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Topaz | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 12 October 2014 (10 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (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 | 384 | no data |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 940 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.56 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7219 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12.0 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | no data |
| Mantle | + | - |
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.
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:
| 900p | 21
−1043%
| 240−250
+1043%
|
| Full HD | 12
−1067%
| 140−150
+1067%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10
−1000%
|
110−120
+1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9
−1011%
|
100−105
+1011%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Dota 2 | 14
−1043%
|
160−170
+1043%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−1033%
|
170−180
+1033%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−1067%
|
70−75
+1067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8
−1088%
|
95−100
+1088%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8
−1088%
|
95−100
+1088%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
−1054%
|
150−160
+1054%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−33
−1067%
|
350−400
+1067%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Dota 2 | 21
−1043%
|
240−250
+1043%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−1082%
|
130−140
+1082%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8
−1088%
|
95−100
+1088%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1033%
|
170−180
+1033%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1011%
|
100−105
+1011%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 8−9
−1088%
|
95−100
+1088%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1088%
|
190−200
+1088%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1033%
|
170−180
+1033%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−1033%
|
170−180
+1033%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1088%
|
190−200
+1088%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
This is how R5 M255 and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:
- Quadro T1000 is 1043% faster in 900p
- Quadro T1000 is 1067% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.40 | 16.65 |
| Recency | 12 October 2014 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
Quadro T1000 has a 1089.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M255 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M255 is a notebook card while Quadro T1000 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.
