AMD Radeon RX 480 vs NVIDIA T1000 8 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA T1000 8 GB and AMD Radeon RX 480 occupy nearly the same performance tier according to aggregate metrics, but their head-to-head results reveal a clear divergence. In the sole shared benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 480 scores 45,968 against the T1000’s 34,561, a 24.8% advantage. This single result is decisive in the win column, giving the AMD card one win and the NVIDIA card zero. However, the average benchmark scores tell a closer story: the T1000’s average is 34,561, while the RX 480’s average is 33,997. The RX 480 has additional benchmark data (3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 966, Geekbench Metal at 51,057, and Geekbench OpenCL at 37,998) that factor into its average, yet it still trails the T1000 in overall average. The percentile rankings reinforce the parity, with the T1000 at the 79th percentile and the RX 480 at the 78th percentile across all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench Vulkan test, and the result is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 480 posts 45,968 points, while the NVIDIA T1000 8 GB manages 34,561 points. That is a 24.8% lead for the RX 480, a substantial margin that suggests the AMD architecture has a significant advantage in this specific API workload. The T1000’s nearest rivals in the aggregate database include the NVIDIA TITAN V at 34,355 points (0.6% behind the T1000) and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 at 34,207 points (1% behind), placing the T1000 in a tight cluster around 34,500 points. The RX 480, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon HD 7950 at 33,951 points (0.1% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 7700S at 33,849 points (0.4% behind), but its Vulkan score of 45,968 is far above its own average, indicating that Vulkan is a particularly strong workload for this card.

Why does the RX 480 dominate so heavily in Vulkan? The data points to raw compute resources: the RX 480 has 2,304 shading units versus the T1000’s 896, and its FP32 throughput is 5.834 TFLOPS compared to 2.500 TFLOPS. The texture rate also favors AMD massively, at 182.3 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s. These are not small differences; they represent more than double the shading capacity and more than double the texture throughput. The T1000 does win in pixel rate, however, at 44.64 GPixel/s versus the RX 480’s 40.51 GPixel/s, a 10.2% edge that suggests better efficiency in rasterization output per clock. But in the Vulkan test, the sheer compute advantage of the RX 480 appears to overwhelm the T1000’s architectural efficiency.

The deltaPct of -24.8% for the T1000 in this head-to-head is the largest disparity in the entire dataset for these cards. For context, the T1000’s nearest rival deltas range from -0.4% (NVIDIA A2) to +1% (NVIDIA RTX A1000), all within a single percentage point. The RX 480’s rival deltas are similarly tight, from -0.5% (RTX A2000 12 GB) to +0.4% (RX 7700S). This makes the 24.8% Vulkan gap extraordinary—it is not a marginal difference but a categorical one. Benchmark results indicate that in Vulkan, the RX 480 is not just slightly faster but operates in a different performance class, roughly equivalent to a 25% performance uplift over the T1000.

The Verdict

From a pure performance standpoint, the AMD Radeon RX 480 is the clear winner in the only benchmark where both cards appear. Its 45,968 Vulkan score outpaces the T1000’s 34,561 by 24.8%, and its shading units, texture rate, and FP32 throughput are all more than double the NVIDIA card’s figures. Anyone prioritizing raw compute performance, especially in Vulkan-based applications, should favor the RX 480 without hesitation. The data shows no countervailing NVIDIA victory in any shared test, so the T1000 cannot claim a performance edge anywhere in this comparison.

However, the T1000 has its own merits that the benchmark averages hint at. Despite losing the Vulkan test, the T1000’s average benchmark score of 34,561 is actually 1.7% higher than the RX 480’s average of 33,997. This suggests that across a broader set of workloads, the T1000 is more consistent, even if it loses the specific Vulkan matchup. The T1000 also has a higher pixel rate (44.64 GPixel/s vs 40.51 GPixel/s), which could matter for certain rendering tasks. The T1000’s percentile of 79 versus the RX 480’s 78 indicates near-identical overall standing, but the NVIDIA card edges ahead in aggregate.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the data, the RX 480 is for users who know their workloads are Vulkan-heavy or compute-intensive, where its 2,304 shading units and 5.834 TFLOPS provide a massive advantage. The T1000 is for users who need a more balanced performer with lower power requirements—its 50 W TDP versus the RX 480’s 150 W is a stark difference—and who value the higher pixel rate. The T1000 is also single-slot with no power connectors, while the RX 480 is dual-slot with a 6-pin connector, making the T1000 far easier to integrate into compact systems. If the choice is purely about benchmark scores, the RX 480 wins the head-to-head; if it is about efficiency and form factor, the T1000 has the edge.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different architectural philosophies. The NVIDIA T1000 uses the TU117 chip on the Turing architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 12 nm process. It packs 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip on the GCN 4.0 architecture, built on GlobalFoundries’ 14 nm process. It contains 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, with a density of 24.6 million per square millimeter. AMD’s chip is larger and denser, but the NVIDIA chip is more power-efficient per transistor.

The compute configurations diverge sharply. The T1000 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 480 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the RX 480 has 2.57 times the shading units and 2.57 times the TMUs, but the same ROP count. The FP32 performance reflects this: 2.500 TFLOPS for the T1000 versus 5.834 TFLOPS for the RX 480. Interestingly, the T1000’s FP16 performance is 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the RX 480’s FP16 is identical to its FP32 at 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). For FP16 workloads, the gap narrows to 16.7% in AMD’s favor, but for FP32, AMD leads by 133%.

Memory architectures also differ. The T1000 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 480 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 480’s memory bandwidth is 60% higher, which is significant for bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The T1000 compensates with newer GDDR6 technology and a higher effective memory clock of 10 Gbps versus the RX 480’s 8 Gbps, but the narrower bus limits its total throughput. Both cards support PCIe 3.0 x16, so the interface is not a differentiator.

API support shows subtle differences. Both support DirectX 12, but the T1000 supports version 12_1 while the RX 480 supports 12_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The T1000 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 480 supports Vulkan 1.3, giving NVIDIA a newer Vulkan version. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 480 has more than double the FP32 throughput at 5.834 TFLOPS versus the NVIDIA T1000’s 2.500 TFLOPS, and it also has 2,304 shading units versus 896.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The RX 480 offers 256.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus with GDDR5, while the T1000 offers 160.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with GDDR6, a 60% advantage for AMD.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The T1000 has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the RX 480 has a 150 W TDP and requires a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card wins in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark?

A: The RX 480 scores 45,968 versus the T1000’s 34,561, a 24.8% advantage for AMD in this specific test.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the T1000 wins?

A: The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the T1000, but its average benchmark score of 34,561 is 1.7% higher than the RX 480’s 33,997, indicating better consistency across multiple tests.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The T1000 is 156 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the RX 480 is 240 mm long, 95 mm tall, and 35 mm wide, making the T1000 substantially more compact.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 480 wins decisively in compute-heavy and Vulkan-based workloads. Its 2,304 shading units and 5.834 TFLOPS FP32 performance are ideal for tasks that scale with raw shader throughput. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth supports data-intensive operations, and the 182.3 GTexel/s texture rate suggests strong performance in texture-bound scenarios. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 966, while not directly comparable to the T1000, indicates the RX 480 can handle modern DX12 workloads. For gamers or compute users leveraging Vulkan, the RX 480 is the obvious choice based on the 24.8% benchmark lead.

The NVIDIA T1000 wins in efficiency and form factor. Its 50 W TDP is one-third of the RX 480’s 150 W, and it requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for systems with limited power delivery. The single-slot design and smaller dimensions (156 mm vs 240 mm length) allow installation in space-constrained chassis. The T1000’s higher pixel rate of 44.64 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s suggests an advantage in fill-rate-limited scenarios, even with fewer shading units. Its newer Vulkan 1.4 support and DirectX 12_1 feature level may provide compatibility benefits in newer applications. The T1000 also has a slightly higher average benchmark score (34,561 vs 33,997), indicating more consistent performance across diverse workloads.

Specification Differences

• Chip: TU117 (NVIDIA) vs Ellesmere (AMD)
• Architecture: Turing vs GCN 4.0
• Process Node: 12 nm (TSMC) vs 14 nm (GlobalFoundries)
• Transistors: 4,700 million vs 5,700 million
• Die Size: 200 mm² vs 232 mm²
• Transistor Density: 23.5M / mm² vs 24.6M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1065 MHz vs 1120 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1395 MHz vs 1266 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective) vs 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective)
• Memory Type: GDDR6 vs GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 160.0 GB/s vs 256.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 896 vs 2304
• TMUs: 56 vs 144
• ROPs: 32 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 44.64 GPixel/s vs 40.51 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 78.12 GTexel/s vs 182.3 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.500 TFLOPS vs 5.834 TFLOPS
• FP16: 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 50 W vs 150 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs 450 W
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a vs 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.3
• Dimensions: 156 mm x 69 mm vs 240 mm x 95 mm x 35 mm
• Release Date: 2021-05-05 vs 2016-06-28