Quadro T1000 vs Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870

Place in the ranking	383	335
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	14.65	23.22
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	Vega Kaby Lake-G	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	7 January 2018 (7 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	1280	no data
Core clock speed	931 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	1011 MHz	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 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 type	HBM2	no data
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	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	44 −13.6%	50−55 +13.6%
1440p	28 −7.1%	30−35 +7.1%
4K	15 −20%	18−20 +20%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −12.5%	27−30 +12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −11.1%	30−33 +11.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −11.1%	50−55 +11.1%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −12.5%	27−30 +12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −11.1%	30−33 +11.1%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −18.2%	65−70 +18.2%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −11.1%	40−45 +11.1%
Metro Exodus	44 −13.6%	50−55 +13.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	48 −14.6%	55−60 +14.6%
Valorant	47 −17%	55−60 +17%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −11.1%	50−55 +11.1%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −12.5%	27−30 +12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −11.1%	30−33 +11.1%
Dota 2	27 −11.1%	30−33 +11.1%
Far Cry 5	37 −21.6%	45−50 +21.6%
Fortnite	75−80 −21.8%	95−100 +21.8%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −18.2%	65−70 +18.2%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −11.1%	40−45 +11.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	41 −9.8%	45−50 +9.8%
Metro Exodus	30 −16.7%	35−40 +16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	129 −16.3%	150−160 +16.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 −19%	50−55 +19%
Valorant	30 −16.7%	35−40 +16.7%
World of Tanks	180−190 −20.2%	220−230 +20.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −11.1%	50−55 +11.1%
Counter-Strike 2	24−27 −12.5%	27−30 +12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 −11.1%	30−33 +11.1%
Dota 2	50−55 −20%	60−65 +20%
Far Cry 5	51 −17.6%	60−65 +17.6%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 −18.2%	65−70 +18.2%
Forza Horizon 5	35−40 −11.1%	40−45 +11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	100−110 −18.8%	120−130 +18.8%
Valorant	55−60 −18.2%	65−70 +18.2%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	20−22 −20%	24−27 +20%
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 −20%	24−27 +20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	62 −21%	75−80 +21%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
World of Tanks	95−100 −13.4%	110−120 +13.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −5.9%	18−20 +5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Far Cry 5	32 −9.4%	35−40 +9.4%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −17.6%	40−45 +17.6%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 −14.3%	24−27 +14.3%
Metro Exodus	27 −11.1%	30−33 +11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −16.7%	21−24 +16.7%
Valorant	30−35 −17.6%	40−45 +17.6%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Dota 2	29 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	29 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30 −16.7%	35−40 +16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	29 −20.7%	35−40 +20.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Counter-Strike 2	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	24−27 −20%	30−33 +20%
Far Cry 5	15 −20%	18−20 +20%
Fortnite	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%
Forza Horizon 5	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Valorant	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%

This is how RX Vega M GL / 870 and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

Quadro T1000 is 14% faster in 1080p
Quadro T1000 is 7% faster in 1440p
Quadro T1000 is 20% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	13.38	16.31
Recency	7 January 2018	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	50 Watt

Quadro T1000 has a 21.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 30% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870 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.