AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA T1000 Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear, if lopsided, picture. The AMD Radeon RX 480 is the dominant performer in the two shared tests, decisively outpacing the NVIDIA T1000 in graphics workloads. However, the T1000 is not without its own strengths, particularly in power efficiency and physical footprint, which makes the choice between them highly dependent on the intended use case.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking difference emerges in the Vulkan graphics test. Here, the AMD Radeon RX 480 scores 45,968 points, while the NVIDIA T1000 manages only 34,874 points. This represents a substantial 24.1% lead for the AMD card, a margin that will be easily perceptible in any GPU-bound application. The results indicate that the RX 480 is in a different performance class for raw graphics throughput.

The gap narrows considerably in the OpenCL compute test, though the AMD card still comes out ahead. The RX 480 scores 37,998, narrowly edging out the T1000’s 37,704. The delta is a mere -0.8% from the T1000’s perspective, placing this result within the margin of error for practical purposes. This near-tie suggests that for compute-oriented tasks, the two cards are much more evenly matched than their Vulkan performance would imply.

These head-to-head results align with the cards' overall standing. The RX 480 holds a higher average benchmark score of 33,997 and sits in the 78th percentile of all GPUs. The T1000, while having a higher average score of 36,289 and a better 80th percentile ranking, is dragged down by its poor Vulkan showing in this direct comparison. The T1000’s closest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon RX 5300M, have an average score of 36,529, which is just 0.7% lower. The RX 480’s nearest competitor, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB, averages 34,154, a score that is 0.5% higher. This context shows the T1000 is a solid mid-pack performer, while the RX 480, despite its lower average, has a higher peak in specific APIs.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process technologies. The NVIDIA T1000 is based on the TU117 chip using the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip with the older GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

This architectural divergence leads to major differences in compute resources. The RX 480 is equipped with 2,304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 ROPs. The T1000 is far more modest, with 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. The AMD card's 2.5x advantage in shading units and TMUs directly explains its superior fill rates and pixel throughput in the Vulkan test.

Clock speeds also favor the AMD card. The RX 480 has a base clock of 1120 MHz and a boost clock of 1266 MHz, while the T1000 operates at a base of 1065 MHz and a boost of 1395 MHz. Although the T1000 has a higher boost clock, the sheer number of cores on the RX 480 gives it a commanding lead in raw compute power. This is reflected in their FP32 performance: the RX 480 delivers 5.834 TFLOPS, more than double the T1000’s 2.500 TFLOPS. The RX 480 also handles FP16 at the same rate (1:1), while the T1000 offers a 2:1 ratio, providing 5.000 TFLOPS.

Memory configurations are starkly different as well. The T1000 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 480 counters with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a wider 256-bit bus, resulting in 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 60% bandwidth advantage and double the memory capacity of the RX 480 are significant factors in its higher resolution and texture-heavy performance. The T1000’s transistor density is slightly lower at 23.5M / mm² compared to the RX 480’s 24.6M / mm², though the AMD chip has more transistors overall (5,700 million vs. 4,700 million) and a larger die size (232 mm² vs. 200 mm²).

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD Radeon RX 480 for performance. It wins both shared benchmarks, including a massive 24.1% victory in Vulkan. For any user prioritizing raw graphics performance or compute throughput in OpenCL, the RX 480 is the clear choice. Its 8 GB of memory and higher bandwidth make it better suited for modern game textures and demanding workloads.

The NVIDIA T1000’s case rests entirely on efficiency and form factor. With a TDP of just 50 W compared to the RX 480’s 150 W, the T1000 consumes one-third of the power. It is a single-slot card that requires no power connectors, while the RX 480 is a dual-slot card needing a 6-pin connector. The T1000 also has a much smaller footprint at 156 mm in length versus the RX 480’s 240 mm.

Therefore, the verdict is straightforward. If the goal is maximum performance and the system can accommodate a larger, more power-hungry card, the AMD Radeon RX 480 is the superior product. If the priority is a low-profile, energy-efficient solution for a compact workstation where space and power are at a premium and the performance deficit is acceptable, the NVIDIA T1000 is the appropriate pick. The T1000’s higher average benchmark score is an outlier driven by its stronger OpenCL result, but its Vulkan performance is a critical weakness in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Vulkan graphics API?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 is significantly faster, scoring 45,968 points compared to the NVIDIA T1000's 34,874 points, a 24.1% difference.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL compute performance?

A: They are nearly identical. The AMD Radeon RX 480 scores 37,998, while the NVIDIA T1000 scores 37,704, a difference of just 0.8%.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA T1000 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The NVIDIA T1000 has a TDP of 50 W and requires no power connectors. The AMD Radeon RX 480 has a TDP of 150 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which card has a higher raw FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480, with 5.834 TFLOPS, is more than double the NVIDIA T1000's 2.500 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the NVIDIA T1000 have any advantages in physical size?

A: Yes, it is a single-slot card measuring 156 mm in length, whereas the AMD Radeon RX 480 is a dual-slot card measuring 240 mm in length and 35 mm in width.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 480 is the definitive winner for graphics-intensive applications. Its 24.1% lead in Vulkan performance makes it the better choice for gaming and any workload that utilizes this modern API. Its double the FP32 throughput and higher texture rate of 182.3 GTexel/s versus the T1000's 78.12 GTexel/s also make it superior for 3D rendering and simulation tasks that are not VRAM-limited. The larger 8 GB frame buffer provides more headroom for high-resolution textures.

The NVIDIA T1000 wins in scenarios where system integration is the primary challenge. Its 50 W TDP means it can be cooled passively or with minimal airflow, making it ideal for silent workstation builds. The single-slot design and lack of power connectors allow it to fit into space-constrained chassis where the larger RX 480 would not. In compute workloads using OpenCL, the performance is effectively a tie, so the T1000 can handle those tasks without a major penalty. Its higher average benchmark score of 36,289 also suggests more consistent performance across a broader range of tests, even if it loses the specific head-to-head Vulkan test.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA T1000 | AMD Radeon RX 480 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 5,700 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 232 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1065 MHz | 1120 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1395 MHz | 1266 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 896 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 56 | 144 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 44.64 GPixel/s | 40.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 78.12 GTexel/s | 182.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.500 TFLOPS | 5.834 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1) | 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions (LxHxW) | 156 mm x 69 mm | 240 mm x 95 mm x 35 mm |

| Release Date | 2021-05-05 | 2016-06-28 |