OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA Quadro T1000 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£400VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):50 W

NVIDIA Quadro T1000 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA Quadro T1000
5.0/10

Overall score

Score
5.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

40%

4.2

Technical score

25%

4.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.2

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 97% of graphics cards
6.0

Value for money

Value for money
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

â–¼Worse than 98%
4.2

Technical score

Technical score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Score components

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

3.3

Memory

12%

6.9

Power

11%

7.5

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.6

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 92%
4.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models

4.2

Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 94%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-quadro-t1000
  • nvidia-quadro-t1000
  • nvidia-quadro-t1000
  • nvidia-quadro-t1000
nvidia-quadro-t1000
nvidia-quadro-t1000
nvidia-quadro-t1000
nvidia-quadro-t1000
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the NVIDIA Quadro T1000

Based on 27 owners sharing their experience in online comments

41%positive26%mixed33%negative

Owners like its creative and gaming performance, while driver trouble and excess heat remain recurring concerns.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say the card runs hot, sitting near 85 degrees even after repasting, and BIOS updates have raised its temperatures.3
  • Owners say it lags in demanding games like Forza, GTA 5 and NFS Heat, which hardly reach 60 fps even at low settings.3
  • Owners report driver problems: games feel jittery until VSync is enabled, a browser slowed down after a driver install, and some laptops don't use the dedicated GPU for demanding tasks.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA Quadro T1000

Technical score
Technical score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
Score components:

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

3.3

Memory

12%

6.9

Power

11%

7.5

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.6

Connectivity

4.2
Reviews score
4.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

8.4

Price

6.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
3,261 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 3,261 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 92.7% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
2,778 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 2,778 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 78.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
6,485 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 6,485 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 91.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,483 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,483 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 93.4% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.5 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.5 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 92.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
160 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 160 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 90.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
10,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 10,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 83.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12.1
This graphics card supports DirectX 12.1, which is older than on 77.2% of graphics cards and equal to 4.5% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
4
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 4 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 97.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
50 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 50 W, which is lower than that of 96.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
50 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 50 W under peak load, which is lower than 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
50 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 50 W, which is lower than that of 97% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
50 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
156 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 156 mm long, which is shorter than 98% of graphics cards.
Height
69 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 69 mm tall, which is shorter than 92.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
132.6 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 132.6 g, which is lighter than 99.6% of Graphics cards.
Show more

NVIDIA Quadro T1000 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 126.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (156 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    156 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • 77.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2001 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,001 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has more DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (4 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    4 vs 3
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 77.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 77.3% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 50% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (6 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    6 W vs 12 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 126.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (156 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    156 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 86.9% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (132.6 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    132.6 g vs 1,014 g
  • 44.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,395 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,395 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 41.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models

    4.2

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.2 vs 7.2
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 26 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (14 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    14 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 44.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,065 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,065 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 128 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (56 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    56 vs 184
  • 41.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 94% of models

    4.2

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.4

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.2 vs 7.2
  • 46.2% lower sentiment score
    4.2 vs 7.8
  • 23.1% worse value for money
    NVIDIA Quadro T1000 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.02 vs 7.4).
    6.02 vs 7.41
  • 44.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,395 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,395 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 26 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (14 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    14 vs 40
  • 44.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,065 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,065 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 128 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (56 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    56 vs 184
  • 79.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (78.1 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    78.12 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 71.1% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (46.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    46.56 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 88.9% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.5 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 71.4% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (6,485 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    6,485 points vs 22,638 points
  • 77.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (3,261 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    3,261 points vs 14,779 points
  • 69.6% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (2,778 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    2,778 points vs 9,148 points
  • 2 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2021 vs 2023).
    May 2021
    2021 vs 2023
  • 83.3% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.08 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 79.4% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,483 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,483 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 83.1% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (5 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    5 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3,456 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (896 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    896 vs 4,352
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (160 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    160 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 47.4% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (10,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    10,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Lower VRS tier
    This graphics card supports a lower VRS tier than the average graphics card (Tier 1 vs Tier 2).
    Tier 1 vs Tier 2
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5.1 vs 6.8).
    5.1 vs 6.8
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12.1 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12.1 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 79.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (4,700 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    4,700 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2 vs 2.1a).
    2.0 vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • No HDMI output
    This graphics card does not include HDMI output, the average graphics card does.
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (4 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    4 vs 6
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No overclocking support
    This graphics card does not support overclocking, the average graphics card does.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 8 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (75 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    75 °C vs 67 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

4.0
GeekShhh
≈ estimated
26/08/2024
Hands-on test · 4K Plex transcoding and HDR tone mapping
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 struggles with 4K Plex transcoding, so the older T400 is the better choice.
5.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
28/11/2021
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks at low to medium settings
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 gives decent frame rates for a workstation card, but it is expensive for gaming; the T600 is the better buy.
9.0
BK Blend
≈ estimated
11/08/2022
Hands-on review · Blender, editing and tuning tests
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 runs Blender and editing smoothly once tuned, with lag only under heavy modifier loads.
7.0
TECH DEVISER ALPHA
≈ estimated
18/09/2024
Unboxing · features and pricing overview
Verdict
NVIDIA Quadro T1000 suits video editing and 3D work, though it is somewhat expensive for its class.
Shop video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Overview video
Shop video
Overview video
Overview video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA Quadro T1000

  • Efficient single-slot, low-profile design fits easily into small form factor (SFF) workstations.
  • Extremely low power consumption (50W) and does not require an external power connector.
  • Certified drivers provide excellent stability and optimization for professional software like CAD, AutoCAD, and video editing.
  • Versatile multi-monitor support with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4 outputs capable of driving multiple 4K or 5K displays.
  • Quiet operation compared to other entry-level professional cards like the T600.
  • Available in an 8GB VRAM variant, which significantly improves handling of larger datasets and complex assemblies.

What customers don't like about NVIDIA Quadro T1000

  • Mediocre gaming performance; it is not optimized for games and often performs slightly worse than a consumer GTX 1650.
  • Lacks dedicated Ray Tracing and Tensor cores found in higher-end RTX Quadro or consumer RTX cards.
  • Lower performance-to-price ratio for general users compared to consumer-grade GPUs like the GTX 1660 Super.
  • The 4GB VRAM model can be a limiting factor for modern 4K video editing and high-resolution workflows.
  • Limited memory bandwidth (128-bit bus) compared to enthusiast-tier cards.

Verdict

The NVIDIA T1000 is a professional, low-profile graphics card built on the Turing architecture, featuring 896 CUDA cores and offering either 4GB or 8GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit interface. Designed for entry-level workstations, it delivers solid performance for 2D/3D modeling and video editing while maintaining a highly efficient 50W power draw that requires no external power connectors. Its main advantages include a compact single-slot design that fits small form factor chassis and support for up to four 5K displays at 60Hz via mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. However, it lacks dedicated Ray Tracing and Tensor cores found in higher-end RTX models and may struggle with performance in demanding modern games or extremely large, complex assemblies.

Compare NVIDIA Quadro T1000 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA Quadro T1000 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found