Quadro T1000 vs GeForce GTX 850M

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 850M with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.

GTX 850M
2014
2 GB DDR3, 45 Watt
5.63

T1000 outperforms GTX 850M by a whopping 158% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking584336
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency9.8822.91
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGM107TU117
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date12 March 2014 (10 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 cores640no data
Core clock speedUp to 936 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1455 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate36.08no data
Floating-point processing power1.155 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs40no 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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
SLI options+-

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 typeDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Standard memory configurationDDR3 or GDDR5no data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speedUp to 2500 MHz8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth80.0 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 3840x2160no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 3840x2160no 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.

H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
Ansel+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.1no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
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.

GTX 850M 5.63
Quadro T1000 14.50
+158%

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.

GTX 850M 2518
Quadro T1000 6481
+157%

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.

GTX 850M 9754
Quadro T1000 33804
+247%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GTX 850M 8686
Quadro T1000 29457
+239%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

GTX 850M 9302
Quadro T1000 34236
+268%

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:

900p84
−150%
210−220
+150%
Full HD32
−150%
80−85
+150%
4K10
−140%
24−27
+140%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−141%
70−75
+141%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−150%
65−70
+150%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−141%
70−75
+141%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−137%
45−50
+137%
Fortnite 35−40
−157%
95−100
+157%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−150%
70−75
+150%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
−135%
40−45
+135%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−139%
55−60
+139%
Valorant 65−70
−146%
170−180
+146%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−150%
65−70
+150%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
−141%
70−75
+141%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 99
−153%
250−260
+153%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%
Dota 2 45−50
−145%
120−130
+145%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−137%
45−50
+137%
Fortnite 35−40
−157%
95−100
+157%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−150%
70−75
+150%
Forza Horizon 5 16−18
−135%
40−45
+135%
Grand Theft Auto V 20
−150%
50−55
+150%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−139%
55−60
+139%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21
−138%
50−55
+138%
Valorant 65−70
−146%
170−180
+146%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
−150%
65−70
+150%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%
Dota 2 45−50
−145%
120−130
+145%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−137%
45−50
+137%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
−150%
70−75
+150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−139%
55−60
+139%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−145%
27−30
+145%
Valorant 65−70
−146%
170−180
+146%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
−157%
95−100
+157%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−140%
24−27
+140%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
−155%
120−130
+155%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
−157%
18−20
+157%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−150%
95−100
+150%
Valorant 65−70
−146%
170−180
+146%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
−140%
24−27
+140%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
−150%
30−33
+150%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−135%
40−45
+135%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Valorant 30−35
−142%
75−80
+142%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Dota 2 21−24
−150%
55−60
+150%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%

This is how GTX 850M and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro T1000 is 150% faster in 900p
  • Quadro T1000 is 150% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro T1000 is 140% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.63 14.50
Recency 12 March 2014 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 50 Watt

GTX 850M has 11.1% lower power consumption.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 157.5% 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 GTX 850M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 850M is a notebook card while Quadro T1000 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M
GeForce GTX 850M
NVIDIA Quadro T1000
Quadro T1000

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 563 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 850M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 446 votes

Rate Quadro T1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 850M or Quadro T1000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.