NVIDIA Quadro T1000 vs NVIDIA GRID K240Q
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro T1000 and NVIDIA GRID K240Q videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro T1000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- Around 87% higher core clock speed: 1395 MHz vs 745 MHz
- 732.4x more texture fill rate: 69.84 GTexel/s vs 95.36 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 12 nm vs 28 nm
- 4.5x lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 225 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 60% higher memory clock speed: 8000 MHz vs 5000 MHz
- 2.6x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6603 vs 2541
- Around 99% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 421 vs 212
- Around 30% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 9009 vs 6935
- Around 30% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 9009 vs 6935
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 vs 28 June 2013 |
| Core clock speed | 1395 MHz vs 745 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 69.84 GTexel/s vs 95.36 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt vs 225 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz vs 5000 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6603 vs 2541 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 421 vs 212 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9009 vs 6935 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9009 vs 6935 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GRID K240Q
- 2x more pipelines: 1536 vs 768
- Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3938 vs 3718
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3667 vs 3359
- Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3938 vs 3718
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3667 vs 3359
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Pipelines | 1536 vs 768 |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3938 vs 3718 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3667 vs 3359 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3938 vs 3718 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3667 vs 3359 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro T1000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GRID K240Q
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro T1000 | NVIDIA GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6603 | 2541 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 421 | 212 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 32981 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 87.83 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 9009 | 6935 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3718 | 3938 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3359 | 3667 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 9009 | 6935 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3718 | 3938 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3359 | 3667 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro T1000 | NVIDIA GRID K240Q | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Turing | Kepler |
| Code name | TU117 | GK104 |
| Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 28 June 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 391 | 489 |
| Type | Mobile Workstation | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $469 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1455 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1395 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 69.84 GFLOPS | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 4.470 TFLOPS | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 2.235 TFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 768 | 1536 |
| Pixel fill rate | 46.56 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 69.84 GTexel/s | 95.36 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Transistor count | 4700 million | 3,540 million |
| Floating-point performance | 2,289 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.1 | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 128 GB/s | 160.0 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro T1000 with others
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
ATIRadeon X1900 GT
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 550v
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7690M
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
NVIDIAQuadro P2000
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
AMDRadeon Pro 575X
NVIDIAQuadro T1000 vs
AMDRadeon RX 5500M
