Quadro T1000 vs NVS 4200M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 4200M with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.

NVS 4200M
2011
1 GB DDR3, 25 Watt
0.73

T1000 outperforms NVS 4200M by a whopping 2189% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1157320
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.0223.14
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGF119TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date22 February 2011 (13 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 cores48no data
Core clock speed810 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1455 MHz
Number of transistors292 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate6.480no data
Floating-point processing power0.1555 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs8no 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
InterfaceMXMPCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed800 MHz8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 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

API 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
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA2.1-

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.

NVS 4200M 0.73
Quadro T1000 16.71
+2189%

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.

NVS 4200M 280
Quadro T1000 6448
+2203%

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.

NVS 4200M 1155
Quadro T1000 33866
+2832%

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 HD13
−2131%
290−300
+2131%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2150%
90−95
+2150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2100%
110−120
+2100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−2173%
250−260
+2173%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−2067%
130−140
+2067%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2158%
700−750
+2158%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2150%
90−95
+2150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2100%
110−120
+2100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−2173%
250−260
+2173%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−2067%
130−140
+2067%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−2100%
220−230
+2100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2158%
700−750
+2158%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2150%
90−95
+2150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2100%
110−120
+2100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−2173%
250−260
+2173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−2067%
130−140
+2067%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−2100%
220−230
+2100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2158%
700−750
+2158%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 6−7
−2067%
130−140
+2067%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−2150%
45−50
+2150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2150%
45−50
+2150%

This is how NVS 4200M and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro T1000 is 2131% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.73 16.71
Recency 22 February 2011 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 50 Watt

NVS 4200M has 100% lower power consumption.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 2189% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 4200M is a mobile workstation 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.

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 NVS 4200M
NVS 4200M
NVIDIA Quadro T1000
Quadro T1000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.1 128 votes

Rate NVS 4200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 378 votes

Rate Quadro T1000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.