Quadro T1000 Mobile vs Radeon R9 285

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 285 with Quadro T1000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R9 285
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 190 Watt
17.31
+2.1%

R9 285 outperforms T1000 Mobile by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking312317
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.57no data
Power efficiency6.3123.48
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameTongaTU117
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date2 September 2014 (10 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 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 cores1792768
Core clock speed918 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1455 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate102.869.84
Floating-point processing power3.29 TFLOPS2.235 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs11248

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1375 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth176.0 GB/s128.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.11.2
Vulkan1.2.1701.2.131
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.

R9 285 17.31
+2.1%
T1000 Mobile 16.95

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.

R9 285 6680
+2.1%
T1000 Mobile 6540

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 285 8570
T1000 Mobile 8727
+1.8%

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 HD60−65
+1.7%
59
−1.7%
4K45−50
−6.7%
48
+6.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.15no data
4K5.53no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 48
+0%
48
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 53
+0%
53
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 119
+0%
119
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 83
+0%
83
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 67
+0%
67
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 47
+0%
47
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 41
+0%
41
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 114
+0%
114
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 63
+0%
63
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 52
+0%
52
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 29
+0%
29
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 32
+0%
32
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 31
+0%
31
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+0%
35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50
+0%
50
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Hitman 3 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how R9 285 and T1000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • R9 285 is 2% faster in 1080p
  • T1000 Mobile is 7% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.31 16.95
Recency 2 September 2014 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 50 Watt

R9 285 has a 2.1% higher aggregate performance score.

T1000 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 280% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R9 285 and Quadro T1000 Mobile.

Be aware that Radeon R9 285 is a desktop card while Quadro T1000 Mobile is a mobile 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.


AMD Radeon R9 285
Radeon R9 285
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 Mobile
Quadro T1000 Mobile

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 76 votes

Rate Radeon R9 285 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 153 votes

Rate Quadro T1000 Mobile 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.