Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Quadro K1100M

Place in the ranking	797	269
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.09	no data
Power efficiency	4.33	23.83
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GK107	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109.94	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	384	1024
Core clock speed	706 MHz	1575 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	22.59	114.2
Floating-point processing power	0.5422 TFLOPS	3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	32
TMUs	32	64

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	medium sized
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	44.8 GB/s	128.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
CUDA	+	7.5

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.

K1100M 2.83

T2000 Mobile 20.77
+634%

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.

K1100M 1088

T2000 Mobile 7985
+634%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

K1100M 1827

T2000 Mobile 13524
+640%

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

−606%

120−130
+606%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

6.47

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −270%	35−40 +270%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −583%	40−45 +583%
Elden Ring	5−6 −1220%	65−70 +1220%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −843%	65−70 +843%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −270%	35−40 +270%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −583%	40−45 +583%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −577%	85−90 +577%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −1020%	55−60 +1020%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −370%	45−50 +370%
Valorant	0−1	80−85

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −843%	65−70 +843%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −270%	35−40 +270%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −583%	40−45 +583%
Dota 2	7−8 −943%	70−75 +943%
Elden Ring	5−6 −1220%	65−70 +1220%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −325%	65−70 +325%
Fortnite	14−16 −627%	100−110 +627%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −577%	85−90 +577%
Grand Theft Auto V	7−8 −943%	70−75 +943%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −1020%	55−60 +1020%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −431%	130−140 +431%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −370%	45−50 +370%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9 −633%	65−70 +633%
Valorant	0−1	80−85
World of Tanks	50−55 −363%	230−240 +363%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −843%	65−70 +843%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −270%	35−40 +270%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −583%	40−45 +583%
Dota 2	7−8 −943%	70−75 +943%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −325%	65−70 +325%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −577%	85−90 +577%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −431%	130−140 +431%
Valorant	0−1	80−85

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	0−1	30−35
Elden Ring	2−3 −1650%	35−40 +1650%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 −3300%	30−35 +3300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	20−22 −760%	170−180 +760%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −850%	18−20 +850%
World of Tanks	18−20 −637%	140−150 +637%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −2000%	40−45 +2000%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −88.9%	16−18 +88.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −467%	16−18 +467%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −714%	55−60 +714%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	50−55
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −625%	27−30 +625%
Valorant	9−10 −500%	50−55 +500%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −119%	35−40 +119%
Elden Ring	1−2 −1400%	14−16 +1400%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −675%	60−65 +675%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −1200%	12−14 +1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Dota 2	16−18 −119%	35−40 +119%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −800%	27−30 +800%
Fortnite	1−2 −2400%	24−27 +2400%
Valorant	3−4 −733%	24−27 +733%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Metro Exodus

45−50

+0%

45−50

+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

This is how K1100M and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

T2000 Mobile is 606% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 3300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

T2000 Mobile is ahead in 53 tests (91%)
there's a draw in 5 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.83	20.77
Recency	23 July 2013	27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	60 Watt

K1100M has 33.3% lower power consumption.

T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 633.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1100M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.