Quadro T1000 vs Radeon R9 290X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290X with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.

R9 290X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
19.27
+14.8%

R9 290X outperforms T1000 by a moderate 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking290324
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.90no data
Power efficiency4.5523.01
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameHawaiiTU117
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date24 October 2013 (11 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 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 cores2816no data
Core clock speedno data1395 MHz
Boost clock speed947 MHz1455 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate176.0no data
Floating-point processing power5.632 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs176no 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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width512 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1250 MHz8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth320 GB/sno 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo 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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212.0 (12_1)
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.0no 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 290X 19.27
+14.8%
Quadro T1000 16.79

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 290X 7425
+14.8%
Quadro T1000 6469

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 HD86
+22.9%
70−75
−22.9%
4K49
+22.5%
40−45
−22.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p6.38no data
4K11.20no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+25%
24−27
−25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+22.9%
35−40
−22.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+26%
50−55
−26%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+25%
24−27
−25%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+28.6%
35−40
−28.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+15.6%
45−50
−15.6%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+20%
100−105
−20%
Hitman 3 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+16.3%
80−85
−16.3%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+20%
55−60
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+15.6%
45−50
−15.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+26%
50−55
−26%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+20%
75−80
−20%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+22.9%
35−40
−22.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+26%
50−55
−26%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+25%
24−27
−25%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+28.6%
35−40
−28.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+15.6%
45−50
−15.6%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+20%
100−105
−20%
Hitman 3 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+16.3%
80−85
−16.3%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+20%
55−60
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+15.6%
45−50
−15.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+26%
50−55
−26%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 137
+24.5%
110−120
−24.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+20%
75−80
−20%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+22.9%
35−40
−22.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33
+25%
24−27
−25%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+28.6%
35−40
−28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+20%
100−105
−20%
Hitman 3 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+16.3%
80−85
−16.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+26%
50−55
−26%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+20.8%
24−27
−20.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+20%
75−80
−20%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+15.6%
45−50
−15.6%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+23.3%
30−33
−23.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+20.8%
24−27
−20.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+25%
16−18
−25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+17.8%
90−95
−17.8%
Hitman 3 21−24
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+20%
30−33
−20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+30%
30−33
−30%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+20%
95−100
−20%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Hitman 3 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+16.5%
85−90
−16.5%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+25%
16−18
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+16.7%
24−27
−16.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+23.8%
21−24
−23.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+16.7%
18−20
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%

This is how R9 290X and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

  • R9 290X is 23% faster in 1080p
  • R9 290X is 23% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.27 16.79
Recency 24 October 2013 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 50 Watt

R9 290X has a 14.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T1000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290X 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.

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 R9 290X
Radeon R9 290X
NVIDIA Quadro T1000
Quadro T1000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.1 454 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 407 votes

Rate Quadro T1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.