Quadro T1000 Max-Q vs Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with Quadro T1000 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.
T1000 Max-Q outperforms R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a whopping 531% 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 | 865 | 364 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 24.61 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri Spectre | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 14 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (6 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 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 765 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 75.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.419 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 56 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 80 GB/s |
| 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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| 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 | 14
−507%
| 85−90
+507%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1214%
|
90−95
+1214%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−580%
|
30−35
+580%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−775%
|
70−75
+775%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1214%
|
90−95
+1214%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−580%
|
30−35
+580%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−633%
|
65−70
+633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−657%
|
50−55
+657%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−592%
|
90−95
+592%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−415%
|
65−70
+415%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−750%
|
50−55
+750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−369%
|
60−65
+369%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−202%
|
130−140
+202%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−775%
|
70−75
+775%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1214%
|
90−95
+1214%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−320%
|
210−220
+320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−580%
|
30−35
+580%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−281%
|
95−100
+281%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−633%
|
65−70
+633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−657%
|
50−55
+657%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−592%
|
90−95
+592%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−415%
|
65−70
+415%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
−750%
|
50−55
+750%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−578%
|
60−65
+578%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−750%
|
30−35
+750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−369%
|
60−65
+369%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−389%
|
40−45
+389%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−202%
|
130−140
+202%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−775%
|
70−75
+775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−580%
|
30−35
+580%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−281%
|
95−100
+281%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−633%
|
65−70
+633%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−657%
|
50−55
+657%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−415%
|
65−70
+415%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−369%
|
60−65
+369%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−389%
|
40−45
+389%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−202%
|
130−140
+202%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−592%
|
90−95
+592%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−433%
|
30−35
+433%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−532%
|
120−130
+532%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−550%
|
150−160
+550%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−632%
|
160−170
+632%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
−580%
|
30−35
+580%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−800%
|
35−40
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−640%
|
35−40
+640%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−100%
|
30−33
+100%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−600%
|
90−95
+600%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−729%
|
55−60
+729%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1300%
|
27−30
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and T1000 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- T1000 Max-Q is 507% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T1000 Max-Q is 1700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T1000 Max-Q performs better in 55 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.54 | 16.02 |
| Recency | 14 January 2014 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
T1000 Max-Q has a 530.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T1000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop graphics card while Quadro T1000 Max-Q 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.
