Quadro T1000 vs UHD Graphics 605

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared UHD Graphics 605 with Quadro T1000, including specs and performance data.

UHD Graphics 605
2017
5 Watt
1.18

T1000 outperforms UHD Graphics 605 by a whopping 1323% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1069324
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency16.1723.01
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGemini Lake GT1.5TU117
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date11 December 2017 (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 cores144no data
Core clock speed200 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speed750 MHz1455 MHz
Number of transistors189 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)5 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate13.50no data
Floating-point processing power0.216 TFLOPSno data
ROPs3no data
TMUs18no 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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem Sharedno data
Maximum RAM amountSystem Sharedno data
Memory bus widthSystem Sharedno data
Memory clock speedSystem Shared8000 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.0no data
Vulkan1.3-

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.

UHD Graphics 605 1.18
Quadro T1000 16.79
+1323%

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.

UHD Graphics 605 453
Quadro T1000 6469
+1328%

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 HD12
−1317%
170−180
+1317%
1440p24
−1150%
300−350
+1150%
4K15
−1300%
210−220
+1300%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1300%
70−75
+1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−1317%
85−90
+1317%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−1257%
190−200
+1257%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−1275%
110−120
+1275%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−1306%
450−500
+1306%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1300%
70−75
+1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−1317%
85−90
+1317%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−1257%
190−200
+1257%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−1275%
110−120
+1275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−1264%
150−160
+1264%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−1306%
450−500
+1306%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1300%
70−75
+1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1233%
40−45
+1233%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−1317%
85−90
+1317%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−1257%
190−200
+1257%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−1275%
110−120
+1275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−1306%
450−500
+1306%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1257%
95−100
+1257%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−1300%
70−75
+1300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1250%
27−30
+1250%

This is how UHD Graphics 605 and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro T1000 is 1317% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro T1000 is 1150% faster in 1440p
  • Quadro T1000 is 1300% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 16.79
Recency 11 December 2017 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 5 Watt 50 Watt

UHD Graphics 605 has 900% lower power consumption.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 1322.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 605 in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics 605 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.

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.


Intel UHD Graphics 605
UHD Graphics 605
NVIDIA Quadro T1000
Quadro T1000

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.


2.7 814 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 605 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 407 votes

Rate Quadro T1000 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.