NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 are both entry-level Pascal-generation GPUs, but they are engineered for entirely different purposes. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Quadro P1000 winning 8 of the 9 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. However, the single loss is significant and reveals a distinct strength in the GeForce part. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and the practical implications of choosing between a professional workstation card and a budget consumer GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Quadro P1000 dominates the GeForce GT 1030 in raw compute and legacy graphics workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P1000 scores 13,584 against the GT 1030’s 8,568, a 58.5% advantage. This gap widens further in Passmark’s DirectX tests. The P1000 leads by 133.3% in DirectX 10 (21 vs. 9), by 119.4% in DirectX 9 (79 vs. 36), and by 82.4% in DirectX 11 (31 vs. 17). These are not marginal wins; they indicate a fundamental difference in shading throughput and memory bandwidth that benefits the Quadro in legacy API scenarios.

The most substantial victory for the P1000 comes in Passmark G3D, where it scores 4,512 versus 2,417 for the GT 1030, a delta of 86.7%. This is the closest proxy for overall 3D rendering performance in the dataset. The P1000 also wins the compute-focused Passmark GPU Compute test by 51.3% (1,891 vs. 1,250) and the 2D graphics test by 33.6% (589 vs. 441). In DirectX 12, the margin narrows to 46.2% (19 vs. 13), suggesting that the newer API reduces some of the architectural penalties the GT 1030 faces in older titles.

The sole exception to this pattern is Geekbench Vulkan, where the GT 1030 wins decisively. It scores 9,229 against the P1000’s 7,739, a 16.1% advantage for the GeForce part. This is a notable reversal, as Vulkan is a modern, low-level API that can expose different hardware strengths. While the P1000’s average benchmark score is 3,163 versus 2,662 for the GT 1030, and the P1000 sits at the 20th percentile of all GPUs versus the GT 1030’s 17th, the Vulkan result proves the GT 1030 is not universally slower. In modern API workloads, the consumer card can outpace the professional one.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same 14 nm Samsung process and share the Pascal architecture, but they use different chips with significantly different configurations. The Quadro P1000 uses the GP107 chip with 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, while the GT 1030 uses the smaller GP108 chip with 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical (25.0M / mm² vs. 24.3M / mm²), confirming that the difference is purely in scale, not in manufacturing sophistication.

The P1000’s larger chip translates into a much bigger execution engine. It has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to the GT 1030’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This is a 66.7% increase in shading units and a 100% increase in ROPs, which directly explains the P1000’s dominance in fill-rate-bound tests. The pixel rate is 47.36 GPixel/s versus 23.49 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 59.20 GTexel/s versus 35.23 GTexel/s. FP32 performance stands at 1.894 TFLOPS for the P1000 versus 1,127.4 GFLOPS for the GT 1030, a 68% difference.

Memory is another major separator. The P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 1030 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 48.06 GB/s. This bandwidth deficit is critical for texture-heavy workloads and compute tasks, and it contributes to the P1000’s strong lead in the Passmark G2D and GPU Compute tests. Clock speeds are similar—the P1000 boosts to 1480 MHz versus 1468 MHz for the GT 1030—so the performance difference is almost entirely due to the wider memory bus and additional execution units.

The bus interface also differs: the P1000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GT 1030 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x4. This can matter for data transfer from system memory, though it is less impactful for gaming and more relevant for professional workloads that stream data to the GPU. Display outputs are another divider: the P1000 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the GT 1030 provides a single DVI and one HDMI 2.0 port. The P1000’s multi-display capability is a clear professional feature.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in overall benchmark scores?

A: The Quadro P1000 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 3,163 compared to the GT 1030’s 2,662. It also ranks higher in the percentile of all GPUs, at 20th versus 17th.

Q: Is there any test where the GT 1030 beats the P1000?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Vulkan, the GT 1030 scores 9,229 against the P1000’s 7,739, a 16.1% advantage. This is the only head-to-head test the GT 1030 wins.

Q: How much more memory bandwidth does the P1000 have?

A: The P1000 delivers 80.19 GB/s, which is 66.9% higher than the GT 1030’s 48.06 GB/s. This is due to the P1000’s 128-bit memory bus versus the GT 1030’s 64-bit bus.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are Pascal architecture GPUs built on a 14 nm Samsung process. However, they use different chips: the P1000 uses GP107, and the GT 1030 uses GP108.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro P1000 has a TDP of 47 W, while the GeForce GT 1030 has a lower TDP of 30 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W.

Q: Which card has more display outputs?

A: The Quadro P1000 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GT 1030 has one DVI and one HDMI 2.0 output.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most workloads: the Quadro P1000 is the superior GPU. It wins by 58.5% in OpenCL, by 86.7% in Passmark G3D, and by 51.3% in GPU compute. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 80.19 GB/s bandwidth make it the clear choice for any task that involves large textures, compute kernels, or multi-display output. The P1000’s 20th percentile ranking and average score of 3,163 place it in a different performance class than the GT 1030’s 17th percentile and 2,662 average.

However, the GT 1030 is not without merit. Its 16.1% victory in Geekbench Vulkan indicates that in modern, low-level graphics APIs, the consumer card can outperform the professional one. This is relevant for users running Vulkan-based games or applications. The GT 1030 also has a lower TDP of 30 W versus 47 W, which makes it easier to cool quietly in a small form-factor system. Its single-slot, 145 mm length design is compact, and its launch MSRP is 79 USD.

Who should pick which? The Quadro P1000 is for professionals who need reliable multi-display output, higher memory bandwidth, and consistent performance across DirectX 9 through 12. The GT 1030 is for users who prioritize Vulkan performance, lower power consumption, and a smaller footprint, and who are willing to accept significantly lower performance in everything else. The data does not support the GT 1030 as a general-purpose replacement for the P1000, but it does carve out a narrow niche where it is the better choice.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P1000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 |

|---------------|---------------------|-------------------------|

| Chip | GP107 | GP108 |

| Generation | Quadro Pascal (Px000) | GeForce 10 |

| Transistors | 3,300 million | 1,800 million |

| Die Size | 132 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1266 MHz | 1228 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1480 MHz | 1468 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 384 |

| TMUs | 40 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 47.36 GPixel/s | 23.49 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 59.20 GTexel/s | 35.23 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.894 TFLOPS | 1,127.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64) | 17.62 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 47 W | 30 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

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

| Dimensions | 150 mm (5.9 in) length, 69 mm (2.7 in) height | 145 mm (5.7 in) length, 69 mm (2.7 in) height, 18 mm (0.7 in) width |

| Release Date | 2017-02-06 | 2017-05-16 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Maxwell | GeForce 900 |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | GeForce 20 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 79 USD |