Quadro T1000 vs GeForce GTX TITAN Z
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX TITAN Z with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.
GTX TITAN Z outperforms T1000 by a substantial 37% 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 | 258 | 340 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.22 | 23.05 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 28 May 2014 (10 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 5760 ×2 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 705 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 876 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 375 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 210.2 ×2 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.046 TFLOPS ×2 | no data |
| ROPs | 48 ×2 | no data |
| TMUs | 240 ×2 | 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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 3-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB ×2 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) ×2 | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 8000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 672 GB/s ×2 | 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12.0 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.93 | 14.53 |
| Recency | 28 May 2014 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 375 Watt | 50 Watt |
GTX TITAN Z has a 37.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX TITAN Z is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T1000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX TITAN Z is a desktop 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.
