Quadro T1000 vs GeForce GT 720M

Place in the ranking	1061	327
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.48	23.14
Architecture	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GK208	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	25 December 2013 (11 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	192	no data
Core clock speed	719 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	758 MHz	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	915 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.13	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.2911 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	8	no data
TMUs	16	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x8	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	DDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Standard memory configuration	DDR3	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	no 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 Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 2560x1600	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 2560x1600	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP content protection	+	-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	+	-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu-Ray 3D Support	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 API	12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	no data
Vulkan	1.1.126	-
CUDA	+	-

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.

GT 720M 1.19

Quadro T1000 16.81
+1313%

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.

GT 720M 458

Quadro T1000 6463
+1311%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GT 720M 2634

Quadro T1000 33829
+1184%

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

−1285%

180−190
+1285%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Elden Ring	0−1	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1275%	110−120 +1275%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −1233%	80−85 +1233%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Dota 2	11 −1264%	150−160 +1264%
Elden Ring	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	15 −1300%	210−220 +1300%
Fortnite	5−6 −1300%	70−75 +1300%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1275%	110−120 +1275%
Grand Theft Auto V	6 −1233%	80−85 +1233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	20 −1300%	280−290 +1300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −1233%	80−85 +1233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
World of Tanks	24−27 −1246%	350−400 +1246%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Dota 2	18 −1289%	250−260 +1289%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −1300%	140−150 +1300%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −1275%	110−120 +1275%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 −1285%	180−190 +1285%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −1257%	95−100 +1257%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
World of Tanks	6−7 −1233%	80−85 +1233%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1233%	120−130 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1300%	70−75 +1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −1250%	27−30 +1250%
Valorant	6−7 −1233%	80−85 +1233%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −1300%	210−220 +1300%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −1300%	210−220 +1300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −1300%	210−220 +1300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
Dota 2	14−16 −1300%	210−220 +1300%
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1
Valorant	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%

This is how GT 720M and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

Quadro T1000 is 1285% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.19	16.81
Recency	25 December 2013	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	50 Watt

GT 720M has 51.5% lower power consumption.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 1312.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 720M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 720M is a notebook 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.