RTX 6000 Ada Generation vs T1000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared T1000 and RTX 6000 Ada Generation, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms T1000 by a whopping 268% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 283 | 16 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 7.19 |
| Power efficiency | 27.32 | 16.75 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | AD102 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 May 2021 (3 years ago) | 3 December 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $6,799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 896 | 18176 |
| Core clock speed | 1065 MHz | 915 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1395 MHz | 2505 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 78.12 | 1,423 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.5 TFLOPS | 91.06 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 192 |
| TMUs | 56 | 568 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 568 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 142 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 960.0 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 Connectors | 4x mini-DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | 8.9 |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 58
−228%
| 190
+228%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
−295%
| 158
+295%
|
| 4K | 30−35
−293%
| 118
+293%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 35.78 |
| 1440p | no data | 43.03 |
| 4K | no data | 57.62 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45
−264%
|
164
+264%
|
| Elden Ring | 52
−446%
|
280−290
+446%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−85.7%
|
110−120
+85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 34
−379%
|
163
+379%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 87
−375%
|
400−450
+375%
|
| Metro Exodus | 62
−82.3%
|
113
+82.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
−191%
|
130−140
+191%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−378%
|
350−400
+378%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−85.7%
|
110−120
+85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28
−454%
|
155
+454%
|
| Dota 2 | 77
−119%
|
160−170
+119%
|
| Elden Ring | 60−65
−351%
|
280−290
+351%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130
+5.7%
|
123
−5.7%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−176%
|
290−300
+176%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 69
−499%
|
400−450
+499%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 77
−119%
|
160−170
+119%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
−152%
|
106
+152%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
−60.4%
|
210−220
+60.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
−191%
|
130−140
+191%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
−181%
|
170−180
+181%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−378%
|
350−400
+378%
|
| World of Tanks | 230−240
−20.8%
|
270−280
+20.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−85.7%
|
110−120
+85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24
−513%
|
147
+513%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−108%
|
130−140
+108%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60
−588%
|
400−450
+588%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
−60.4%
|
210−220
+60.4%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−378%
|
350−400
+378%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−355%
|
140−150
+355%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
−497%
|
190−200
+497%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−341%
|
140−150
+341%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
−417%
|
90−95
+417%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
−282%
|
500−550
+282%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−118%
|
85−90
+118%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−719%
|
131
+719%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−202%
|
160−170
+202%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−435%
|
270−280
+435%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
−120%
|
99
+120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−711%
|
219
+711%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−541%
|
300−350
+541%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−150%
|
40
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−382%
|
160−170
+382%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
−607%
|
100−110
+607%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−382%
|
160−170
+382%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−500%
|
90
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−248%
|
200−210
+248%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−392%
|
60−65
+392%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−382%
|
160−170
+382%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−355%
|
90−95
+355%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−475%
|
90−95
+475%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−304%
|
100−110
+304%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−300%
|
95−100
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−414%
|
140−150
+414%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−692%
|
190−200
+692%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
This is how T1000 and RTX 6000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 228% faster in 1080p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 295% faster in 1440p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 293% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the T1000 is 6% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 719% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T1000 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is ahead in 53 tests (96%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.84 | 73.01 |
| Recency | 6 May 2021 | 3 December 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 300 Watt |
T1000 has 500% lower power consumption.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 268% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 6000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the T1000 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
