Quadro T1000 vs Radeon R6 (Carrizo)

Place in the ranking	969	319
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.07	23.85
Architecture	GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Carrizo	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	4 June 2015 (9 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	384	no data
Core clock speed	no data	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	800 MHz	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	2410 Million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12-35 Watt	50 Watt

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	no data
Interface	no data	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 bus width	64/128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	no data	8000 MHz
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 data

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (FL 12_0)	12.0 (12_1)
OpenGL	no data	4.6

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

−1000%

110−120
+1000%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−900%

40−45
+900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Hitman 3	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −967%	160−170 +967%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −961%	350−400 +961%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Hitman 3	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −967%	160−170 +967%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 −971%	150−160 +971%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −961%	350−400 +961%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Hitman 3	6−7 −983%	65−70 +983%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −967%	160−170 +967%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −991%	120−130 +991%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −961%	350−400 +961%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−900%

30−33
+900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Hitman 3	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−900%

40−45
+900%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−900%

10−11
+900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−900%

30−33
+900%

This is how R6 (Carrizo) and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

Quadro T1000 is 1000% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.51	16.74
Recency	4 June 2015	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	50 Watt

R6 (Carrizo) has 316.7% lower power consumption.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 1008.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R6 (Carrizo) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R6 (Carrizo) is a notebook 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.