NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in a completely different performance tier than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M. The GTX 1050 Ti holds an average benchmark score of 4193 across all recorded tests, while the Quadro 2000M averages 3434. This places the GTX 1050 Ti at the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database, versus the 21st percentile for the Quadro 2000M. In the single head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1050 Ti scores 18129 against 3434 for the Quadro 2000M, a 427.9% advantage. That is not a marginal gap; it is a generational chasm.

The GTX 1050 Ti is the clear choice for any workload that stresses compute, graphics, or modern API support. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (0.6% faster), the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (1% faster), and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (1.8% faster), which shows it sits in a dense cluster of similar-performance mobile parts. The Quadro 2000M, by contrast, competes with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (0.1% faster), Intel HD Graphics P4600 (1.3% faster), and Intel HD Graphics 530 (3.1% faster). The GTX 1050 Ti belongs to a group of discrete-class GPUs, while the Quadro 2000M is closer to integrated graphics territory.

Who should pick which? The GTX 1050 Ti is suited for anyone running DirectX 12 or Vulkan workloads, given its API support for DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 2000M, despite its professional branding, only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. For legacy applications that ran on Fermi-era mobile workstations, the Quadro 2000M may still function, but the benchmark data shows it is outclassed in every measurable way.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1050 Ti uses the GP107 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It contains 3,300 million transistors on a die size of 132 mm², giving a transistor density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip from the Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. That chip has 1,170 million transistors on a larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a density of only 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The process node difference alone explains much of the performance gap: newer lithography allows more logic in less space.

The shading unit counts differ sharply. The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 4x advantage in shading units, a 1.5x advantage in TMUs, and a 2x advantage in ROPs for the GTX 1050 Ti. The pixel rate for the GTX 1050 Ti is 44.54 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000M, and the texture rate is 66.82 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 2.138 TFLOPS for the GTX 1050 Ti, while the Quadro 2000M manages 422.4 GFLOPS. The GTX 1050 Ti also records an FP16 rate of 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Quadro 2000M has no FP16 data in the database.

Memory architecture is another divider. The GTX 1050 Ti uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 28.80 GB/s. Memory clock differences compound this: the GTX 1050 Ti runs at 1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective, while the Quadro 2000M runs at 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective. The GTX 1050 Ti also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, whereas the Quadro 2000M uses an MXM-A (3.0) module interface, which is typical for older mobile workstations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti achieves 2.138 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro 2000M reaches 422.4 GFLOPS. The GTX 1050 Ti is approximately 5x faster in FP32 throughput, and the recorded Geekbench OpenCL score confirms this with a 427.9% delta in its favor.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The GTX 1050 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro 2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The GTX 1050 Ti also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti delivers 112.1 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The Quadro 2000M delivers 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus width. The GTX 1050 Ti has nearly 4x the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has a TDP of 75 W, while the Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W. However, the GTX 1050 Ti delivers far higher performance per watt given its massive benchmark lead, and it uses a 14 nm process versus the 40 nm process of the Quadro 2000M.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 2000M sits at the 21st percentile. The GTX 1050 Ti's average benchmark score is 4193, and the Quadro 2000M's is 3434.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The GTX 1050 Ti was released on 2016-10-24, and the Quadro 2000M was released on 2011-01-12.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Process Node: 14 nm (GTX 1050 Ti) vs 40 nm (Quadro 2000M)
• Foundry: Samsung vs TSMC
• Transistors: 3,300 million vs 1,170 million
• Die Size: 132 mm² vs 238 mm²
• Transistor Density: 25.0M / mm² vs 4.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1291 MHz vs no base clock recorded
• Boost Clock: 1392 MHz vs no boost clock recorded
• Memory Clock: 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) vs 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory Size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Memory Bandwidth: 112.1 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s
• Shading Units: 768 vs 192
• TMUs: 48 vs 32
• ROPs: 32 vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 44.54 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 66.82 GTexel/s vs 17.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.138 TFLOPS vs 422.4 GFLOPS
• FP16: 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64) vs none recorded
• TDP: 75 W vs 55 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs MXM Module
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs MXM-A (3.0)
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs none
• Dimensions: 145 mm length, 111 mm height vs no dimensions recorded
• Release Date: 2016-10-24 vs 2011-01-12
• Predecessor: GeForce 900 vs Quadro FX Mobile
• Successor: GeForce 20 vs Quadro Kepler-M
• Launch MSRP: 139 USD vs none recorded

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one recorded head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 1050 Ti scores 18129, and the Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The delta is 427.9%, making the GTX 1050 Ti the winner. This single result is consistent with the broader specification differences: the GTX 1050 Ti has 4x the shading units, 4x the memory bandwidth, and more than 5x the FP32 throughput.

Looking at the wider benchmark suite for the GTX 1050 Ti, it also posts scores in Passmark tests that the Quadro 2000M does not have recorded: Passmark G3D at 6340, Passmark G2D at 651, Passmark GPU Compute at 2652, Passmark DirectX 9 at 104, Passmark DirectX 11 at 45, Passmark DirectX 10 at 31, Passmark DirectX 12 at 26, Geekbench Vulkan at 10001, Geekbench Metal at 7834, and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 305. The Quadro 2000M has no entries for those tests in the database, which limits direct comparison but also underscores how much more thoroughly the GTX 1050 Ti has been validated.

The average benchmark score difference, 4193 versus 3434, translates to about a 22% edge for the GTX 1050 Ti across all recorded tests. But that average is skewed by the fact that the GTX 1050 Ti has many more test entries, including heavy compute workloads. The only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the true magnitude of the gap. The GTX 1050 Ti wins the sole head-to-head matchup, and the specification sheet leaves no doubt about why: it is a smaller, denser, more modern chip with vastly superior memory and shader resources. The Quadro 2000M was competitive in its 2011 era, but against a 2016 Pascal part, it has no answer.