Component comparison
Quadro T1000 vs GeForce 940M
Quadro T1000 vs GeForce 940M — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
Quadro T1000
- + Release year (+4)
- + VRAM (GB) (+2 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+7100 MHz)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + Lithography (nm) (-16 nm)
- + Boost clock (MHz) (+357 MHz)
- + CUDA cores (+384)
- + Energy efficiency (+17.8)
- + PassMark (overall) (+5380)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+27825)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+25176)
- + Normalized score (+39.7)
B
GeForce 940M
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+25 W)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
Quadro T1000
|
Component B
GeForce 940M
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2019 (+4) | 2015 |
| VRAM (GB) | 4 GB (+2 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 8000 MHz (+7100 MHz) | 900 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | — | 14 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit (+64 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 50 W | 75 W (+25 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm (-16 nm) | 28 nm |
| Transistors (M) | — | 1,870M |
| Die size (mm²) | — | 148 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 1020 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1455 MHz (+357 MHz) | 1098 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 768 (+384) | 384 |
| TMUs | — | 24 |
| ROPs | — | 8 |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | — | 0.90 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | — | 17.57 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | — | 35.14 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 24.1 (+17.8) | 6.4 |
| PassMark (overall) | 6,513 (+5380) | 1,133 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | — | 1,622 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 33,850 (+27825) | 6,025 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 29,725 (+25176) | 4,549 |
| Normalized score | 45.9 (+39.7) | 6.2 |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | Quadro T1000 | GeForce 940M | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anno 1800 | 37 FPS | 7 FPS | +428.6% (A) |
| Battlefield V | 38 FPS | 17 FPS | +123.5% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Dota 2 Reborn | 113 FPS | 49 FPS | +130.6% (A) |
| F1 2019 | 61 FPS | 18 FPS | +238.9% (A) |
| FIFA 19 | 114 FPS | 34 FPS | +235.3% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 57 FPS | 11 FPS | +418.2% (A) |
| Farming Simulator 19 | 86 FPS | 19 FPS | +352.6% (A) |
| For Honor | 64 FPS | 14 FPS | +357.1% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| GTA V | 94 FPS | 14 FPS | +571.4% (A) |
| Ghost Recon Wildlands | 44 FPS | 10 FPS | +340% (A) |
| Kingdom Come: Deliverance | 41 FPS | 10 FPS | +310% (A) |
| Metro Exodus | 32 FPS | 2 FPS | +1500% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Rainbow Six Siege | 112 FPS | 20 FPS | +460% (A) |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider | 53 FPS | 10 FPS | +430% (A) |
| Rocket League | 117 FPS | 24 FPS | +387.5% (A) |
| Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order | 58 FPS | 11 FPS | +427.3% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 53 FPS | 10 FPS | +430% (A) |
| Total War: Three Kingdoms | 38 FPS | 9 FPS | +322.2% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
Quadro T1000 wins 12 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).