Quadro T1000 vs UHD Graphics 600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 600 with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.
T1000 outperforms UHD Graphics 600 by a whopping 1837% 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 | 1148 | 340 |
| Place by popularity | 67 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 11.90 | 23.06 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Gemini Lake GT1 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 December 2017 (7 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 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 | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 650 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.800 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1248 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 2 | no data |
| TMUs | 12 | 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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | 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 | System Shared | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | no data |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 8000 MHz |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 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.
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.
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 | 10
−1800%
| 190−200
+1800%
|
| 1440p | 1
−1700%
| 18−20
+1700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| Valorant | 13
−1823%
|
250−260
+1823%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1718%
|
400−450
+1718%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−1757%
|
130−140
+1757%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Valorant | 11
−1809%
|
210−220
+1809%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−1757%
|
130−140
+1757%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1733%
|
550−600
+1733%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1775%
|
150−160
+1775%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1833%
|
290−300
+1833%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
This is how UHD Graphics 600 and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:
- Quadro T1000 is 1800% faster in 1080p
- Quadro T1000 is 1700% faster in 1440p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.75 | 14.53 |
| Recency | 11 December 2017 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 5 Watt | 50 Watt |
UHD Graphics 600 has 900% lower power consumption.
Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 1837.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 600 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 600 is a notebook card while Quadro T1000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
