NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile vs NVIDIA T1000 Comparison

The recorded data paints one of the most lopsided matchups in the database: a flagship mobile GeForce part from the Ada Lovelace generation against a compact, end-of-life workstation card from the Turing era. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile wins both head-to-head benchmark entries, and the margin is not subtle. What makes the pairing interesting is that the raw averages sit closer than the head-to-head numbers suggest, which invites a closer look at what each score actually measures.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests appear in both records, and the RTX 4090 Mobile takes both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 4090 Mobile scores 180831 against the T1000's 37704, a delta of 379.6 percent. Geekbench Vulkan tells an almost identical story: 170774 versus 34874, a 389.7 percent gap. Roughly speaking, the mobile flagship delivers close to five times the compute throughput of the T1000 in these workloads.

That consistency across two different APIs is worth noting. When a GPU dominates in both OpenCL and Vulkan, the gap reflects hardware capability rather than a driver quirk or an API-specific optimization. The recorded data shows a structural difference in resources, not a benchmark anomaly.

The averages tell a subtler story. The RTX 4090 Mobile carries an average benchmark score of 43667 and sits in the 84th percentile of all GPUs in the database; the T1000 averages 36289 and lands in the 80th percentile. That four-point percentile gap looks modest next to a fivefold compute lead, and the explanation lies in the sample of tests: the RTX 4090 Mobile has Passmark entries in its record, while the T1000's record holds only the two Geekbench results, so the averages are computed over different test mixes and are not directly comparable measures of head-to-head performance.

Context from the rival lists reinforces each card's standing. The RTX 4090 Mobile sits within a percent of the Quadro M6000 (0.8), the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile (0.9), and the Quadro M6000 24 GB (0.9), and trails the RTX A6000 by 0.9 percent, company that includes professional-grade parts. The T1000 clusters near the Radeon RX 5300M (0.7 percent behind), the GTX TITAN X (0.7 percent behind), and the Radeon Pro Duo (1.2 percent ahead), and sits 2.2 percent ahead of the Quadro GV100 on average.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different worlds. The RTX 4090 Mobile is built on TSMC's 5 nm process using the AD103 chip under the Ada Lovelace architecture, packing 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, which works out to a density of 121.1M per mm². The T1000 uses the TU117 chip on Turing, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC, with 4,700 million transistors across 200 mm² and a density of just 23.5M per mm².

The resource gap follows directly. The RTX 4090 Mobile fields 9728 shading units, 304 texture units, 112 ROPs, 76 RT cores, and 304 tensor cores. The T1000 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, and its record lists no RT cores or tensor cores at all. That absence matters: the T1000's record shows no hardware ray tracing or tensor acceleration, while the RTX 4090 Mobile has dedicated silicon for both.

Feature support diverges the same way. The RTX 4090 Mobile reports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2); the T1000 stops at DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interface also differs, with PCIe 4.0 x16 on the mobile flagship versus PCIe 3.0 x16 on the T1000.

Generation context rounds out the picture. The RTX 4090 Mobile belongs to the GeForce 40 Mobile generation, sitting between the GeForce 30 Mobile predecessor and the GeForce 50 Mobile successor, and its production status is Active. The T1000 belongs to the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, successor to Quadro Volta and predecessor to Workstation Ampere, and it is End-of-life.

FAQ

Q: How large is the benchmark gap between the two cards?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile wins Geekbench OpenCL by 379.6 percent (180831 vs 37704) and Geekbench Vulkan by 389.7 percent (170774 vs 34874), taking both head-to-head tests.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The T1000 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, one quarter the capacity and well under a third the bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile lists 76 RT cores. The T1000's record lists none, and it also lacks the 304 tensor cores found on the mobile part.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile runs a 1335 MHz base and 1695 MHz boost with memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The T1000 runs 1065 MHz base and 1395 MHz boost with memory at 1250 MHz (10 Gbps effective).

Q: How do they rank against the rest of the database?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile sits in the 84th percentile; the T1000 sits in the 80th percentile. Their averages, 43667 versus 36289, come from different test mixes and understate the direct performance gap shown in the head-to-head results.

Q: Which card is still in production?

A: The RTX 4090 Mobile is Active. The T1000 is End-of-life.

The Verdict

On pure performance, the data leaves no room for debate: the RTX 4090 Mobile wins every shared benchmark by roughly a factor of five, and its rival cluster (Quadro M6000, RTX A6000, RTX 5050 Mobile) places it among far heavier hardware than the T1000's neighbors (RX 5300M, GTX TITAN X, Radeon Pro Duo, Quadro GV100).

Where the T1000 retains an argument is in its physical and power profile. It draws 50 W, needs no auxiliary power connectors, fits a single slot, and measures 156 mm long by 69 mm high, with a suggested PSU of 250 W and four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The RTX 4090 Mobile draws 120 W as an integrated mobile part with device-dependent outputs. For a small-form-factor workstation driving multiple professional displays where compute is secondary, the T1000's record describes a deliberately compact design; the trade-off is a fivefold deficit in every measured compute test.

FP16 behavior is another data point worth weighing. The RTX 4090 Mobile posts 32.98 TFLOPS FP32 and the same 32.98 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, while the T1000 posts 2.500 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.000 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The T1000 doubles its FP16 rate relative to FP32, but from a base so low that it still trails the mobile flagship by a wide margin.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: Ada Lovelace versus Turing
• Chip: AD103 versus TU117
• Process node: 5 nm versus 12 nm
• Transistors: 45,900 million versus 4,700 million
• Die size: 379 mm² versus 200 mm²
• Transistor density: 121.1M/mm² versus 23.5M/mm²
• Shading units: 9728 versus 896
• TMUs: 304 versus 56
• ROPs: 112 versus 32
• RT cores: 76 versus none listed
• Tensor cores: 304 versus none listed
• Base clock: 1335 MHz versus 1065 MHz
• Boost clock: 1695 MHz versus 1395 MHz
• Memory: 16 GB GDDR6, 256-bit, 576.0 GB/s versus 4 GB GDDR6, 128-bit, 160.0 GB/s
• Memory speed: 18 Gbps effective versus 10 Gbps effective
• Pixel rate: 189.8 GPixel/s versus 44.64 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 515.3 GTexel/s versus 78.12 GTexel/s
• FP32: 32.98 TFLOPS versus 2.500 TFLOPS
• FP16: 32.98 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 120 W versus 50 W
• Slot width: IGP versus Single-slot
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1)
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• Dimensions: not listed versus 156 mm length, 69 mm height
• Suggested PSU: none listed versus 250 W
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life
• Release date: 2023-01-02 versus 2021-05-05

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4090 Mobile wins every measured workload in the shared data. Geekbench OpenCL (180831 vs 37704) and Geekbench Vulkan (170774 vs 34874) both favor it by margins near 380 to 390 percent, so any GPU-compute task, rendering, simulation, or modern 3D workload recorded here belongs to it. Its 16 GB frame buffer and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth also make it the only one of the two suited to large datasets, and its 76 RT cores and 304 tensor cores cover workloads the T1000's record simply does not address. With pixel fill of 189.8 GPixel/s and texture fill of 515.3 GTexel/s, it leads by roughly a factor of four to six in every throughput metric.

The T1000 wins nothing in the benchmarks, and the honest reading of the data is that its case rests entirely on form factor and efficiency. At 50 W in a single-slot, 156 mm card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and a 250 W suggested PSU, it fits places the integrated mobile flagship cannot: small workstations needing modest multi-display capability. Even there, the record is blunt about the ceiling: 4 GB of memory, 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and 2.500 TFLOPS FP32. As a compute or gaming proposition, the head-to-head data gives it no wins at all; as a compact display-and-light-compute part, its specifications, not its scores, are the whole argument.