NVIDIA RTX A2000 vs NVIDIA T1000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two workstation cards. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 scores 67,695, while the NVIDIA T1000 manages 37,704. That is a 79.5% advantage for the A2000, a massive margin that places the two cards in entirely different tiers of compute capability. The gap widens further in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the A2000 posts 69,089 against the T1000's 34,874, a 98.1% difference. In effect, the A2000 delivers nearly double the raw throughput in both measured API workloads.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The A2000 sits at 46,043, while the T1000 rests at 36,289. That 9,754 point gap is not a subtle refinement, it is a full generational leap. The A2000's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 85th, compared to the T1000's 80th, which may seem like a modest difference, but the percentile scale compresses at the top end. The A2000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45,972 (0.2% behind), the Intel Arc A730M at 45,592 (1% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46,601 (1.2% ahead). The T1000, meanwhile, trades blows with the AMD Radeon RX 5300M at 36,529 (0.7% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X at 36,530 (0.7% ahead). This places the T1000 in the company of older high-end consumer cards, while the A2000 sits alongside modern workstation and mobile GPUs.

In the head-to-head tests available in the database, the A2000 wins both, giving it a 2 to 0 record. There is no benchmark in the recorded set where the T1000 comes out ahead. The smallest margin of victory for the A2000 is 79.5%, which means even the closest comparison is not close. These are not incremental improvements, they are category differences.

The Verdict

The data points to one unambiguous conclusion: the NVIDIA RTX A2000 is the superior card for any workload represented in these benchmarks. It wins both recorded tests by margins of 79.5% and 98.1%, holds a higher average score, and ranks in the 85th percentile of all GPUs compared to the T1000's 80th. Anyone choosing between these two for compute-heavy tasks should take the A2000 without hesitation.

The T1000 is not without context, however. Its 80th percentile ranking is respectable, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro GV100, which it leads by 2.2%. For users whose workloads are already satisfied by the T1000's level of performance, the card remains functional. But the benchmark data does not identify any scenario where the T1000 outperforms the A2000, and the margin of victory is so large that the A2000 should be the default choice for any new purchase.

The A2000 also carries the advantage of being a newer architecture generation, and its production status is end-of-life, just like the T1000, so neither card is a future-proof investment. But between two end-of-life workstation cards, the one with roughly double the compute performance is the rational pick. The T1000 makes sense only in the narrow case where its lower power draw and smaller slot width are hard requirements, and even then, the performance sacrifice is steep.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A2000 wins in every measured category. In OpenCL, its 67,695 score eclipses the T1000's 37,704 by 79.5%. In Vulkan, its 69,089 score doubles the T1000's 34,874, a 98.1% lead. The A2000 also wins on average benchmark score, 46,043 versus 36,289, and on percentile ranking, 85th versus 80th.

The T1000 does hold advantages in specific physical attributes. It draws 50 W versus the A2000's 70 W, making it more power-efficient in absolute terms, though the A2000 delivers far more performance per watt when considering the score differential. The T1000 is also a single-slot card, while the A2000 is dual-slot, meaning the T1000 occupies less space in a chassis and may fit in chassis configurations where the A2000 cannot. Both cards use no external power connectors and share the same suggested power supply rating of 250 W, so system power requirements are identical.

For use cases, the A2000 is the choice for GPU compute, rendering, or any workload that scales with shading units, tensor cores, or ray tracing acceleration. The T1000 is the choice for a compact workstation where slot width is the limiting factor and the workload is light enough that the performance gap does not matter. The T1000's memory capacity of 4 GB also limits it to smaller datasets, while the A2000's 6 GB provides 50% more capacity.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A2000 in OpenCL?

A: The A2000 scores 67,695 in Geekbench OpenCL against the T1000's 37,704, a 79.5% advantage.

Q: Does the T1000 win any benchmark?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the A2000 wins both tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The T1000 has zero wins.

Q: What is the difference in Vulkan performance?

A: The A2000 scores 69,089 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the T1000 scores 34,874. That is a 98.1% lead for the A2000, nearly double the performance.

Q: How do these cards rank against all other GPUs?

A: The A2000 is in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the T1000 is in the 80th percentile. The A2000's average benchmark score is 46,043, and the T1000's is 36,289.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The A2000 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The T1000 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes. Both the NVIDIA RTX A2000 and the NVIDIA T1000 have a production status of end-of-life in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is fundamental. The A2000 uses the GA106 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. The T1000 uses the TU117 chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 12 nm process. This node difference alone explains a significant portion of the performance gap, as the A2000 packs 12,000 million transistors into a 276 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The T1000 contains just 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, a density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The A2000 has roughly two and a half times the transistor count on a die that is only 38% larger.

The compute resources differ even more starkly. The A2000 features 3,328 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The T1000 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The A2000 also includes 26 ray tracing cores and 104 tensor cores, while the T1000 has none of either. This makes the A2000 a fully featured accelerator for ray-traced workloads and AI inference, capabilities the T1000 simply does not possess.

Clock behavior also reflects the architectural differences. The T1000 has a higher base clock of 1065 MHz and a higher boost clock of 1395 MHz, while the A2000 runs at a modest 562 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the A2000's massive shading unit count and wider memory interface produce far higher throughput. The A2000 delivers 7.987 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the T1000 delivers 2.500 TFLOPS. The FP16 picture is interesting: the A2000 achieves 7.987 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the T1000 reaches 5.000 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio. The T1000's FP16 throughput is closer to the A2000's, but the A2000 still wins.

The A2000 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T1000 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The A2000 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the T1000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, halving the available bus bandwidth for data transfers. The architecture differences are not academic; they translate directly into the benchmark results.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every specification that matters for performance. The A2000 has a 6 GB memory capacity, the T1000 has 4 GB. The A2000's GDDR6 memory runs at 1500 MHz with a 12 Gbps effective rate, while the T1000's GDDR6 runs at 1250 MHz with a 10 Gbps effective rate. The memory bus width is 192-bit on the A2000 versus 128-bit on the T1000, and the resulting bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. The A2000 offers 80% more memory bandwidth.

The pixel rate favors the A2000 at 57.60 GPixel/s versus the T1000's 44.64 GPixel/s, a 29% advantage. The texture rate is 124.8 GTexel/s on the A2000 versus 78.12 GTexel/s on the T1000, a 60% advantage. Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs all favor the A2000 by wide margins. The A2000 has 3,328 shading units versus 896, 104 TMUs versus 56, and 48 ROPs versus 32.

The physical specifications differ as well. The A2000 is 167 mm long and 69 mm high, while the T1000 is 156 mm long and 69 mm high. The A2000 is dual-slot, the T1000 is single-slot. Both draw power from the PCIe slot with no external connectors, but the A2000 has a 70 W TDP versus the T1000's 50 W. Both recommend a 250 W power supply. The A2000 was released on 2021-08-09, while the T1000 was released on 2021-05-05, making the T1000 roughly three months older. The A2000's predecessor is Quadro Turing, and its successor is Workstation Ada. The T1000's predecessor is Quadro Volta, and its successor is Workstation Ampere. The A2000 has a launch MSRP of 449 USD. Both cards output through 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors.

The specification sheet makes the hierarchy clear: the A2000 is a modern, high-throughput workstation GPU, while the T1000 is a compact, low-power entry point. The benchmark results simply confirm what the specifications predict.