RTX 4000 Ada Generation Mobile vs T1200 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared T1200 Mobile and RTX 4000 Ada Generation Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 4000 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms T1200 Mobile by a whopping 190% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 284 | 43 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.60 | 26.80 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 April 2021 (3 years ago) | 21 March 2023 (1 year 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 | 1024 | 7424 |
| Core clock speed | 855 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1425 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt (35 - 95 Watt TGP) | 150 Watt (60 - 150 Watt TGP) |
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 | medium sized | large |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10000 MHz | 16000 MHz |
| Shared memory | - | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 12 Ultimate |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 | 60
−183%
| 170−180
+183%
|
| 1440p | 32
−181%
| 90−95
+181%
|
| 4K | 90
−189%
| 260−270
+189%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
−180%
|
140−150
+180%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−186%
|
100−105
+186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−175%
|
110−120
+175%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
−180%
|
140−150
+180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−178%
|
220−230
+178%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−186%
|
100−105
+186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−175%
|
110−120
+175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
−177%
|
180−190
+177%
|
| Fortnite | 100−105
−180%
|
280−290
+180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−186%
|
220−230
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50
−180%
|
140−150
+180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−178%
|
200−210
+178%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−182%
|
400−450
+182%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
−180%
|
140−150
+180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−178%
|
220−230
+178%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−186%
|
100−105
+186%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−183%
|
650−700
+183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−175%
|
110−120
+175%
|
| Dota 2 | 114
−163%
|
300−310
+163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
−188%
|
170−180
+188%
|
| Fortnite | 100−105
−180%
|
280−290
+180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−186%
|
220−230
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−183%
|
150−160
+183%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 71
−182%
|
200−210
+182%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−168%
|
110−120
+168%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−178%
|
200−210
+178%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
−182%
|
200−210
+182%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−182%
|
400−450
+182%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−178%
|
220−230
+178%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−186%
|
100−105
+186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−175%
|
110−120
+175%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
−180%
|
300−310
+180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
−186%
|
160−170
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−186%
|
220−230
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40
−175%
|
110−120
+175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−178%
|
200−210
+178%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
−170%
|
100−105
+170%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−182%
|
400−450
+182%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−105
−180%
|
280−290
+180%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−155%
|
350−400
+155%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
−170%
|
100−105
+170%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−171%
|
65−70
+171%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−163%
|
450−500
+163%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
−179%
|
500−550
+179%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−178%
|
150−160
+178%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−175%
|
55−60
+175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−178%
|
50−55
+178%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
−168%
|
110−120
+168%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−171%
|
130−140
+171%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−179%
|
95−100
+179%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−174%
|
85−90
+174%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
−179%
|
120−130
+179%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−179%
|
95−100
+179%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−178%
|
75−80
+178%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−180%
|
300−310
+180%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−176%
|
80−85
+176%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Dota 2 | 109
−175%
|
300−310
+175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−186%
|
60−65
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−188%
|
95−100
+188%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−165%
|
45−50
+165%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−189%
|
55−60
+189%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
−189%
|
55−60
+189%
|
This is how T1200 Mobile and RTX 4000 Ada Generation Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 4000 Ada Generation Mobile is 183% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4000 Ada Generation Mobile is 181% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4000 Ada Generation Mobile is 189% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.98 | 57.92 |
| Recency | 12 April 2021 | 21 March 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 150 Watt |
T1200 Mobile has 57.9% lower power consumption.
RTX 4000 Ada Generation Mobile, on the other hand, has a 189.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 4000 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the T1200 Mobile in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
