NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB vs NVIDIA T1000 8 GB Comparison

The NVIDIA T1000 8 GB and NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB are both end-of-life workstation cards from NVIDIA, but they represent distinctly different generations and performance tiers. The T1000 is a Turing-era part, while the A2000 is an Ampere-era part, and the data shows a significant gap in raw compute and memory capabilities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There is no direct head-to-head benchmark data available for these two cards. Instead, each card has its own set of benchmark results, which can be compared indirectly through their average scores and nearest rivals.

The T1000’s sole benchmark result is a Geekbench Vulkan score of 34,561. This places it in the 79th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A2 (avg score 34,690, deltaPct -0.4), the NVIDIA TITAN V (avg score 34,355, deltaPct 0.6), and the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (avg score 34,207, deltaPct 1). The T1000 is essentially neck-and-neck with these cards, trailing the A2 by 0.4% and leading the TITAN V by 0.6%. Its average benchmark score is 34,561.

The RTX A2000 presents a more complex picture. It has two benchmark results: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1,309 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 66,998. Its average benchmark score is 34,154, which is slightly lower than the T1000’s average of 34,561. This puts the A2000 in the same 79th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT (avg score 34,133, deltaPct 0.1), the NVIDIA RTX A1000 (avg score 34,207, deltaPct -0.2), the AMD Radeon RX 480 (avg score 33,997, deltaPct 0.5), and the NVIDIA TITAN V (avg score 34,355, deltaPct -0.6).

The data indicates that while the A2000 has a much higher peak performance in specific tests like OpenCL (66,998 vs. no comparable test for the T1000), its average score is lower. This suggests that the A2000’s performance is highly workload-dependent, with its strength in compute-heavy tasks potentially offset by other factors. The T1000, with a single Vulkan score, appears more consistent in that specific API. The deltaPct values show that both cards are clustered within 1% of several older, high-end GPUs, indicating that neither card is a clear outlier in overall average performance.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The T1000 uses the TU117 chip, which is based on the Turing architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 23.5M / mm². The A2000, in contrast, uses the GA106 chip, based on the Ampere architecture, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. This chip packs 12,000 million transistors onto a 276 mm² die, for a transistor density of 43.5M / mm².

The core configurations diverge sharply. The T1000 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. It has no dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The A2000, on the other hand, has 3,328 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. It also includes 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the T1000. This difference in shader count is massive, with the A2000 offering nearly four times the shading units.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The T1000 has a base clock of 1065 MHz and a boost clock of 1395 MHz. The A2000 has a much lower base clock of 562 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the A2000’s raw throughput is far higher due to its larger core count. The FP32 performance is 2.500 TFLOPS for the T1000 and 7.987 TFLOPS for the A2000. The FP16 performance is 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1) for the T1000 and 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) for the A2000. This means the A2000 achieves its FP16 rate at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, whereas the T1000 uses a 2:1 ratio, indicating a different architectural approach to half-precision compute.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The T1000 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, running at 1250 MHz with a 10 Gbps effective data rate, yielding a bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s. The A2000 has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus, running at 1500 MHz with a 12 Gbps effective data rate, yielding a bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. The A2000 offers 50% more memory capacity and 80% more bandwidth.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher raw compute performance in FP32?

A: The RTX A2000 has a significantly higher FP32 performance at 7.987 TFLOPS, compared to the T1000’s 2.500 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the RTX A2000 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RTX A2000 includes 26 ray tracing cores. The T1000 has no ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The T1000 has 8 GB of memory with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the A2000 has 12 GB of memory with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The T1000 has a lower TDP of 50 W, compared to the A2000’s 70 W.

Q: Are both cards the same physical size?

A: No, the T1000 is 156 mm long and single-slot, while the A2000 is 167 mm long and dual-slot. Both have a height of 69 mm.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The T1000 has an average benchmark score of 34,561, while the A2000 has an average benchmark score of 34,154.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the RTX A2000 is the superior card in almost every measurable hardware specification. It has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, more memory, and higher memory bandwidth. Its FP32 performance is over three times that of the T1000. The T1000 does have a higher boost clock (1395 MHz vs. 1200 MHz) and a lower TDP (50 W vs. 70 W), but these advantages are overwhelmed by the A2000’s architectural advantages.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The T1000’s average score is 34,561, which is higher than the A2000’s 34,154. This suggests that in the specific workloads represented by the Geekbench Vulkan test, the T1000 holds its own or even surpasses the A2000. The A2000’s strengths are more apparent in its Geekbench OpenCL score of 66,998, which is nearly double the T1000’s Vulkan result, but this is a different test, and a direct comparison is not possible.

The A2000 also has a newer PCIe interface (4.0 vs. 3.0) and a higher launch MSRP of 449 USD. The T1000 launched on 2021-05-05, while the A2000 launched later on 2021-11-22. Both cards are end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two cards differ, based on the data provided.

| Specification | NVIDIA T1000 8 GB | NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB |

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

| Chip | TU117 | GA106 |

| Architecture | Turing | Ampere |

| Generation | Quadro Turing (Tx000) | Workstation Ampere (Ax000) |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 12,000 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 276 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1065 MHz | 562 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1395 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz / 10 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz / 12 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 896 | 3328 |

| TMUs | 56 | 104 |

| ROPs | 32 | 48 |

| RT Cores | None | 26 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 104 |

| Pixel Rate | 44.64 GPixel/s | 57.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 78.12 GTexel/s | 124.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.500 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 5.000 TFLOPS (2:1) | 7.987 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 70 W |

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

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Dimensions (Length) | 156 mm / 6.1 inches | 167 mm / 6.6 inches |

| Release Date | 2021-05-05 | 2021-11-22 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Volta | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | Workstation Ampere | Workstation Ada |

| Launch MSRP | None | 449 USD |

| Benchmark Scores | Geekbench Vulkan: 34,561 | 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12: 1,309; Geekbench OpenCL: 66,998 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 34,561 | 34,154 |

Where Each One Wins

The T1000 wins in scenarios where its lower power draw and higher boost clock are beneficial. Its 50 W TDP makes it a candidate for systems with strict power budgets. It is also a single-slot card, which may be advantageous in dense chassis configurations. Its higher boost clock of 1395 MHz could provide an edge in lightly-threaded workloads that rely on single-core clock speed. The data shows its average benchmark score is slightly higher, suggesting it may be more consistent in general-purpose Vulkan workloads.

The A2000 wins in scenarios requiring maximum compute throughput. Its 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 power, 26 ray tracing cores, and 104 tensor cores make it the clear choice for rendering, simulation, and AI-adjacent tasks. The 12 GB memory capacity and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth provide a substantial advantage for large datasets and textures. Its newer PCIe 4.0 interface allows for faster data transfer to and from the host system. The presence of 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and OpenCL benchmarks indicates its performance is validated across a broader range of modern APIs. The A2000 is the only one of the two with a launch MSRP of 449 USD, which is a factual data point in its favor, though pricing considerations are otherwise outside the scope of this analysis.