NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct head-to-head comparison between these two GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 manages 4,979 points. That is a 72.5% advantage for the GTX 1050 Ti, meaning the newer card delivers roughly 3.6 times the raw compute performance in this workload. The delta is so large that it overshadows any nuance in the comparison; the Quadro 4000 is not merely behind, it is in a different performance class entirely.

To contextualize the Quadro 4000's single benchmark result, the database places it at the 29th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which scores 4,970 (a 0.2% difference), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4,998 (0.4% higher). The Quadro 4000 essentially trades blows with integrated and entry-level parts from a much later era, which underscores how far GPU performance has advanced since its release. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5,018, 0.8% higher, and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4,931, 1% lower. These are all within a few percentage points, so the Quadro 4000's compute output sits in a cluster of low-end mobile and integrated solutions, not anywhere near modern discrete graphics.

The GTX 1050 Ti, by contrast, sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, which might sound low but reflects the massive number of faster cards released after 2016. Its nearest rivals in average benchmark score are the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4,170 (0.6% lower), the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4,151 (1% lower), the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M at 4,241 (1.1% higher), and the AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4,268 (1.8% higher). These deltas are all under 2%, meaning the GTX 1050 Ti's average score of 4,193 across all its benchmark entries places it in a tightly contested mid-low tier. The average score is dragged down by several low-resolution API tests, but the OpenCL result shows the card's true compute headroom.

The story is clear: when the same workload runs on both cards, the GTX 1050 Ti wins by a landslide. The Quadro 4000's 4,979 is a respectable figure for a 2010 workstation part, but it cannot compete with the 18,129 posted by the 2016 consumer card. No other head-to-head tests exist in the database, so this single result defines the comparison.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the GTX 1050 Ti wins the only direct comparison available. The Geekbench OpenCL test is a compute-heavy workload that stresses shading units, texture throughput, and memory bandwidth, all areas where the Pascal architecture is fundamentally superior. The GTX 1050 Ti's 18,129 score demonstrates strength in general-purpose GPU compute, which translates to tasks like video encoding, physics simulations, and data-parallel processing.

The Quadro 4000, despite losing the compute test, retains relevance in its intended professional ecosystem. Its architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and it was designed for workstation validation and driver certification. The database shows it has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 15.20 GTexel/s. These specifications are modest by modern standards, but they indicate a card that was built for stability in CAD, medical imaging, and scientific visualization rather than raw speed. The Quadro 4000 also offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for high-resolution framebuffers but not for large datasets.

The GTX 1050 Ti, in contrast, has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 44.54 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 66.82 GTexel/s, both several times higher than the Quadro 4000's figures. It also carries 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The 4 GB capacity is a major advantage for modern game textures or compute buffers that exceed 2 GB. The GTX 1050 Ti's FP32 throughput is 2.138 TFLOPS, while the Quadro 4000 manages 486.4 GFLOPS, a 4.4x difference that aligns with the OpenCL score gap.

For use cases, the GTX 1050 Ti wins for anyone prioritizing compute performance, gaming, or general-purpose acceleration. The Quadro 4000's only wins would be in legacy professional software that relies on certified OpenGL drivers, but the database does not include such tests. In every measurable benchmark, the GTX 1050 Ti is superior.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural eras. The Quadro 4000 is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF100 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 1050 Ti uses the Pascal architecture with the GP107 chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This process shrink is the fundamental driver of everything else: the Quadro 4000's die measures 529 mm² and contains 3,100 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The GTX 1050 Ti's die is just 132 mm² but holds 3,300 million transistors, for a density of 25.0 million per mm². That is a 4.2x increase in transistor density, achieved in just six years.

The memory subsystem differs significantly. The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with a memory clock of 702 MHz and 2.8 Gbps effective. The GTX 1050 Ti has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1752 MHz and 7 Gbps effective. Despite having half the bus width, the GTX 1050 Ti achieves higher bandwidth (112.1 GB/s vs. 89.86 GB/s) because its memory clock is much faster. The Quadro 4000's wider bus helps it maintain bandwidth at lower clocks, but the capacity difference (2 GB vs. 4 GB) is decisive for modern workloads.

Clock speeds are another major gap. The Quadro 4000's memory is clocked at 702 MHz, but its base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. The GTX 1050 Ti has a base clock of 1291 MHz and a boost clock of 1392 MHz, which explains its much higher pixel and texture rates. The GTX 1050 Ti also supports FP16 compute at 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Quadro 4000 has no recorded FP16 capability. For FP32, the GTX 1050 Ti's 2.138 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS.

Connectivity and power also differ. The Quadro 4000 uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while the GTX 1050 Ti uses PCIe 3.0 x16, doubling the available bus bandwidth for data transfers. The Quadro 4000 requires a 142 W TDP and a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The GTX 1050 Ti has a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W, making it far more efficient. The GTX 1050 Ti is also shorter (145 mm vs. 241 mm) and dual-slot, while the Quadro 4000 is single-slot. Display outputs differ: the Quadro 4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the GTX 1050 Ti offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

API support reflects the generational gap. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. The GTX 1050 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, giving it access to modern graphics APIs and features like async compute and explicit multi-GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129, which is 72.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's 4,979.

Q: How much VRAM does each card have, and does it matter?

A: The Quadro 4000 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 1050 Ti has 4 GB of GDDR5. The larger capacity on the GTX 1050 Ti allows it to handle larger textures and datasets without running out of memory.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a 142 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W PSU. The GTX 1050 Ti has a 75 W TDP, needs no power connectors, and has a suggested 250 W PSU.

Q: Do these cards support the same modern APIs?

A: No. The GTX 1050 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 4000 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti's average score of 4,193 places it within 1.8% of the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4,268) and 1.1% of the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4,241). It is less than 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M330 and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M.

Q: Is the Quadro 4000 still competitive with any modern GPUs?

A: Its OpenCL score of 4,979 puts it within 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970) and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4,931), but those are low-end or integrated parts. It is far behind the GTX 1050 Ti.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the superior GPU in every measurable aspect, and the only direct benchmark result shows a 72.5% lead in OpenCL compute. Its 4 GB of memory, 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, lower power draw, and modern API support make it a better choice for virtually any workload, from gaming to general compute. The Quadro 4000's 2 GB memory, 486.4 GFLOPS, and lack of Vulkan support limit it to legacy professional tasks or light compute duties.

For users who need a card for modern applications, the GTX 1050 Ti is the obvious pick. It consumes less power (75 W vs. 142 W), fits in shorter chassis, and does not require external power connectors. The Quadro 4000, despite its workstation pedigree, offers no performance advantage in the recorded tests and its only potential edge lies in certified drivers for old professional software, which the database does not measure.

The GTX 1050 Ti also holds up better against its own rivals: it sits within 2% of the AMD Radeon Vega 3 and the Quadro K3000M, meaning it is not a standout in its own era, but it is competitive. The Quadro 4000, by contrast, is clustered with integrated graphics and entry-level mobile parts from years later, indicating that its performance has aged poorly.

Given the benchmark scores, architectural differences, and power requirements, the GTX 1050 Ti should be chosen by anyone seeking usable performance today. The Quadro 4000 is only relevant for extremely specific legacy use cases, and even then, its low memory capacity and old compute capabilities are severe drawbacks. The verdict is clear: the GTX 1050 Ti wins decisively on performance, efficiency, and modern feature support.