Quadro T1000 vs Radeon R9 280X

Place in the ranking	355	330
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.52	no data
Power efficiency	4.18	23.18
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Tahiti	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	8 October 2013 (11 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$299	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	2048	no data
Core clock speed	no data	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	4,313 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	128.0	no data
Floating-point processing power	4.096 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	no data
TMUs	128	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	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	275 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pin	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	GDDR5	no data
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	no data
Memory bus width	384 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	no data	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	288 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
TressFX	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
UVD	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	+	-

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.

R9 280X 14.99

Quadro T1000 16.62
+10.9%

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.

R9 280X 5837

Quadro T1000 6468
+10.8%

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	64 −9.4%	70−75 +9.4%
4K	33 −6.1%	35−40 +6.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.67	no data
4K	9.06	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −2%	50−55 +2%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −4.8%	65−70 +4.8%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −7.1%	45−50 +7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −8.1%	40−45 +8.1%
Valorant	60−65 −6.6%	65−70 +6.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −2%	50−55 +2%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Dota 2	36 +2.9%	35−40 −2.9%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −9.1%	60−65 +9.1%
Fortnite	80−85 −7.1%	90−95 +7.1%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −4.8%	65−70 +4.8%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	54 −1.9%	55−60 +1.9%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −7.1%	45−50 +7.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −10.1%	120−130 +10.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −8.1%	40−45 +8.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 −5.8%	55−60 +5.8%
Valorant	60−65 −6.6%	65−70 +6.6%
World of Tanks	190−200 −7.7%	210−220 +7.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −2%	50−55 +2%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Dota 2	137 −9.5%	150−160 +9.5%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −9.1%	60−65 +9.1%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 −4.8%	65−70 +4.8%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −10.1%	120−130 +10.1%
Valorant	60−65 −6.6%	65−70 +6.6%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 −9.1%	24−27 +9.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −4.3%	24−27 +4.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −5.6%	150−160 +5.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
World of Tanks	100−110 −3.8%	110−120 +3.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −8.1%	40−45 +8.1%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −6.1%	35−40 +6.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Valorant	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −3.8%	27−30 +3.8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	68 −10.3%	75−80 +10.3%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Fortnite	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −9.1%	24−27 +9.1%
Forza Horizon 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%

This is how R9 280X and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

Quadro T1000 is 9% faster in 1080p
Quadro T1000 is 6% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	14.99	16.62
Recency	8 October 2013	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	50 Watt

Quadro T1000 has a 10.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 280X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280X is a desktop card while Quadro T1000 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.