Quadro T1200 Mobile vs Radeon RX 470 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 470 Mobile with Quadro T1200 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T1200 Mobile outperforms RX 470 Mobile by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 311 | 296 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.05 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 14.74 | 74.26 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 926 MHz | 855 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1074 MHz | 1425 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 137.5 | 91.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.399 TFLOPS | 2.918 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 64 |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 160.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| 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. 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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 50−55
−16%
| 58
+16%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
−10%
| 33
+10%
|
| 4K | 75−80
−8%
| 81
+8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 11.00 | no data |
| 1440p | 18.33 | no data |
| 4K | 7.33 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−8.3%
|
35−40
+8.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−6.9%
|
60−65
+6.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+112%
|
17
−112%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−7.9%
|
80−85
+7.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−6.1%
|
50−55
+6.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
−2%
|
50−55
+2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
−4.7%
|
45−50
+4.7%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−6.8%
|
75−80
+6.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−6.9%
|
60−65
+6.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+157%
|
14
−157%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−75.4%
|
114
+75.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+5.1%
|
59
−5.1%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
−6.1%
|
100−110
+6.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−7.9%
|
80−85
+7.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−6.1%
|
50−55
+6.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
−9.2%
|
71
+9.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
−8.2%
|
50−55
+8.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
−5.6%
|
130−140
+5.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
−4.7%
|
45−50
+4.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
−24.6%
|
71
+24.6%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−6.8%
|
75−80
+6.8%
|
| World of Tanks | 210−220
−4.1%
|
220−230
+4.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−6.9%
|
60−65
+6.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+227%
|
11
−227%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−64.6%
|
107
+64.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+10.7%
|
56
−10.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−7.9%
|
80−85
+7.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
−2%
|
50−55
+2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
−5.6%
|
130−140
+5.6%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−1.4%
|
75−80
+1.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−27.6%
|
37
+27.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
−1.8%
|
170−180
+1.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 120−130
−4%
|
130−140
+4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−8.1%
|
40−45
+8.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+100%
|
7
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+17.1%
|
41
−17.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+2.5%
|
40−45
−2.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−6.5%
|
30−35
+6.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−1.9%
|
55−60
+1.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−6.5%
|
30−35
+6.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−5.6%
|
18−20
+5.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−252%
|
109
+252%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how RX 470 Mobile and T1200 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T1200 Mobile is 16% faster in 1080p
- T1200 Mobile is 10% faster in 1440p
- T1200 Mobile is 8% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 470 Mobile is 227% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T1200 Mobile is 252% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 470 Mobile is ahead in 7 tests (13%)
- T1200 Mobile is ahead in 34 tests (63%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (24%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.49 | 18.66 |
| Recency | 4 August 2016 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | 18 Watt |
RX 470 Mobile has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
T1200 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 6.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 372.2% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 470 Mobile and Quadro T1200 Mobile.
Be aware that Radeon RX 470 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T1200 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
