Quadro T1000 vs Quadro K4100M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4100M with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.

K4100M
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
7.15

T1000 outperforms K4100M by a whopping 135% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking547324
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.51no data
Power efficiency4.9023.02
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGK104TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 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 cores1152no data
Core clock speed706 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1455 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate67.78no data
Floating-point processing power1.627 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32no data
TMUs96no 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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed800 MHz8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth102.4 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
Display Port1.2no 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.

DirectX1212.0 (12_1)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan+-
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. 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.

K4100M 7.15
Quadro T1000 16.79
+135%

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.

K4100M 2755
Quadro T1000 6469
+135%

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.

K4100M 8855
Quadro T1000 33875
+283%

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.

K4100M 7058
Quadro T1000 30130
+327%

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.

K4100M 6821
Quadro T1000 34236
+402%

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 HD48
−129%
110−120
+129%
4K13
−131%
30−35
+131%

Cost per frame, $

1080p31.23no data
4K115.31no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
−122%
40−45
+122%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Battlefield 5 21−24
−114%
45−50
+114%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
−125%
45−50
+125%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
−134%
110−120
+134%
Hitman 3 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
−126%
95−100
+126%
Metro Exodus 20−22
−125%
45−50
+125%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
−125%
45−50
+125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
−129%
55−60
+129%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−122%
120−130
+122%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
−122%
40−45
+122%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Battlefield 5 21−24
−114%
45−50
+114%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
−125%
45−50
+125%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
−134%
110−120
+134%
Hitman 3 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
−126%
95−100
+126%
Metro Exodus 20−22
−125%
45−50
+125%
Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
−125%
45−50
+125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
−129%
55−60
+129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 67
−124%
150−160
+124%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−122%
120−130
+122%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
−122%
40−45
+122%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−119%
35−40
+119%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
−134%
110−120
+134%
Hitman 3 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
−126%
95−100
+126%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
−129%
55−60
+129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−127%
50−55
+127%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−122%
120−130
+122%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
−125%
45−50
+125%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−114%
30−33
+114%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−120%
55−60
+120%
Hitman 3 10−12
−118%
24−27
+118%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−133%
35−40
+133%
Metro Exodus 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
−122%
100−105
+122%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−125%
27−30
+125%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Hitman 3 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−117%
50−55
+117%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
−125%
18−20
+125%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%

This is how K4100M and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro T1000 is 129% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro T1000 is 131% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.15 16.79
Recency 23 July 2013 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 50 Watt

Quadro T1000 has a 134.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4100M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4100M 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 Quadro K4100M
Quadro K4100M
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.


4.2 91 vote

Rate Quadro K4100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 407 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.