Quadro T1000 vs Quadro FX 350M

Place in the ranking	1442	324
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	0.50	23.01
Architecture	Curie (2003−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	G72	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	13 March 2006 (18 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	7	no data
Core clock speed	450 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	450 MHz	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	112 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	90 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	1.800	no data
ROPs	2	no data
TMUs	4	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).

Interface	PCIe 1.0 x16	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	GDDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	450 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	9.0c (9_3)	12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model	3.0	no data
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	no data
Vulkan	N/A	-

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.

FX 350M 0.11

Quadro T1000 16.79
+15164%

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.

FX 350M 44

Quadro T1000 6469
+14602%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

−14900%

300−310
+14900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −14900%	450−500 +14900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −14900%	300−310 +14900%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −14900%	300−310 +14900%
Hitman 3	4−5 −14900%	600−650 +14900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −14900%	1200−1250 +14900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −14900%	600−650 +14900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −15079%	4250−4300 +15079%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −14900%	450−500 +14900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −14900%	300−310 +14900%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −14900%	300−310 +14900%
Hitman 3	4−5 −14900%	600−650 +14900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −14900%	1200−1250 +14900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −14900%	600−650 +14900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −14900%	1350−1400 +14900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −15079%	4250−4300 +15079%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −14900%	450−500 +14900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −14900%	300−310 +14900%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −14900%	300−310 +14900%
Hitman 3	4−5 −14900%	600−650 +14900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −14900%	1200−1250 +14900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −14900%	600−650 +14900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −14900%	1350−1400 +14900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −15079%	4250−4300 +15079%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 −14900%	900−950 +14900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −14900%	300−310 +14900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−14900%

300−310
+14900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −14900%	150−160 +14900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−14900%

300−310
+14900%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.11	16.79
Recency	13 March 2006	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	90 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	50 Watt

FX 350M has 233.3% lower power consumption.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 15163.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 350M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 350M 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.