Quadro T1000 vs Quadro P3200

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P3200 with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.

Quadro P3200
2018
6 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
22.74
+35.4%

P3200 outperforms T1000 by a substantial 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking249324
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency20.7923.02
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGP104TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date21 February 2018 (6 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 cores1792no data
Core clock speed1328 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speed1543 MHz1455 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate172.8no data
Floating-point processing power5.53 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64no data
TMUs112no 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 connectorsNoneNone

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 amount6 GBno data
Memory bus width192 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1753 MHz8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth168.3 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

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.131-
CUDA6.1-

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.

Quadro P3200 22.74
+35.4%
Quadro T1000 16.79

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.

Quadro P3200 8762
+35.4%
Quadro T1000 6469

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.

Quadro P3200 34195
+0.9%
Quadro T1000 33875

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.

Quadro P3200 35810
+18.9%
Quadro T1000 30130

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.

Quadro P3200 27741
Quadro T1000 34236
+23.4%

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 HD86
+43.3%
60−65
−43.3%
4K28
+55.6%
18−21
−55.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+37%
27−30
−37%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65
+44.4%
45−50
−44.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+36.4%
55−60
−36.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+37%
27−30
−37%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+51.4%
35−40
−51.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+37%
100−105
−37%
Hitman 3 45−50
+53.3%
30−33
−53.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+42.7%
75−80
−42.7%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+43.6%
55−60
−43.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 129
+35.8%
95−100
−35.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+41.4%
70−75
−41.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 88
+46.7%
60−65
−46.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+36.4%
55−60
−36.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+37%
27−30
−37%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+51.4%
35−40
−51.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+37%
100−105
−37%
Hitman 3 45−50
+53.3%
30−33
−53.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+42.7%
75−80
−42.7%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+43.6%
55−60
−43.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+40%
55−60
−40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+42.9%
35−40
−42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+41.4%
70−75
−41.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40
+48.1%
27−30
−48.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+37%
27−30
−37%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+51.4%
35−40
−51.4%
Forza Horizon 4 72
+44%
50−55
−44%
Hitman 3 45−50
+53.3%
30−33
−53.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+42.7%
75−80
−42.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+40%
55−60
−40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46
+53.3%
30−33
−53.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+41.4%
70−75
−41.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+50%
40−45
−50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+46.7%
30−33
−46.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+45.8%
24−27
−45.8%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+50%
16−18
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+44.4%
18−20
−44.4%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+36.8%
95−100
−36.8%
Hitman 3 27−30
+50%
18−20
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+56.7%
30−33
−56.7%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+43.3%
30−33
−43.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+40%
35−40
−40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+50%
18−20
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 130−140
+38.9%
95−100
−38.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+40.7%
27−30
−40.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+50%
12−14
−50%
Hitman 3 18−20
+50%
12−14
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+38.8%
85−90
−38.8%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+55.6%
18−20
−55.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+50%
18−20
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%

This is how Quadro P3200 and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro P3200 is 43% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P3200 is 56% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.74 16.79
Recency 21 February 2018 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 16 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 50 Watt

Quadro P3200 has a 35.4% higher aggregate performance score.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T1000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro P3200 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 P3200
Quadro P3200
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.


3.7 296 votes

Rate Quadro P3200 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.