Quadro T1000 vs Radeon R9 380

Place in the ranking	342	327
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	9.07	no data
Power efficiency	5.76	23.14
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Antigua	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$199	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	1792	no data
Compute units	28	no data
Core clock speed	no data	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	970 MHz	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	108.6	no data
Floating-point processing power	3.476 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	32	no data
TMUs	112	no 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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	221 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Form factor	full height / full length / dual slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2 x 6-pin	None
Bridgeless CrossFire	+	-

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	no data
High bandwidth memory (HBM)	-	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	no data
Memory bus width	256 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	970 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	182.4 GB/s	no 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire	+	-
FRTC	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
LiquidVR	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.3	no data
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	no data
Vulkan	+	-
Mantle	+	-

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 380 15.89

Quadro T1000 16.81
+5.8%

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 380 6110

Quadro T1000 6463
+5.8%

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 HD	65 +0%	65−70 +0%
4K	27 +0%	27−30 +0%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.06	no data
4K	7.37	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +3.7%	27−30 −3.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Elden Ring	45−50 −2%	50−55 +2%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +3.7%	27−30 −3.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%
Valorant	60−65 −1.6%	65−70 +1.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +3.7%	27−30 −3.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Dota 2	55−60 −5.3%	60−65 +5.3%
Elden Ring	45−50 −2%	50−55 +2%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −5.3%	60−65 +5.3%
Fortnite	85−90 −2.3%	90−95 +2.3%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 −5.3%	60−65 +5.3%
Metro Exodus	40−45 −4.7%	45−50 +4.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +2.7%	110−120 −2.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40 −5.3%	40−45 +5.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 −5.8%	55−60 +5.8%
Valorant	60−65 −1.6%	65−70 +1.6%
World of Tanks	200−210 −4.5%	210−220 +4.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +2%	50−55 −2%
Counter-Strike 2	27−30 +3.7%	27−30 −3.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	30−35 +3.3%	30−33 −3.3%
Dota 2	55−60 −5.3%	60−65 +5.3%
Far Cry 5	55−60 −5.3%	60−65 +5.3%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	110−120 +2.7%	110−120 −2.7%
Valorant	60−65 −1.6%	65−70 +1.6%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	21−24 −4.3%	24−27 +4.3%
Elden Ring	24−27 +4.2%	24−27 −4.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 −2%	150−160 +2%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
World of Tanks	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +6.7%	30−33 −6.7%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 −2.6%	40−45 +2.6%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Valorant	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Elden Ring	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +4.4%	45−50 −4.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Fortnite	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −4.3%	24−27 +4.3%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

This is how R9 380 and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

A tie in 1080p
A tie in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	15.89	16.81
Recency	18 June 2015	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	190 Watt	50 Watt

Quadro T1000 has a 5.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 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 380 and Quadro T1000.

Be aware that Radeon R9 380 is a desktop 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.