NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D

The data presents a stark generational contrast: the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, built on Pascal, utterly dominates the Quadro K2000D, a Kepler-era workstation card, in the single available head-to-head benchmark. The GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129 in Geekbench OpenCL against the K2000D’s 3,919, a delta of 362.6% — meaning the consumer card is roughly 4.6 times faster in compute throughput. With an average benchmark score of 4,193 versus 3,919, the GTX 1050 Ti also holds a 7% overall advantage, though its 25th percentile ranking versus the K2000D’s 23rd shows both sit near the bottom of the GPU performance distribution. The verdict from the data is unambiguous for raw performance, but the Quadro’s professional positioning and lower power draw tell a more nuanced story for specific use cases.

The Verdict

The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the clear performance winner, and the data supports this without qualification. Its sole head-to-head benchmark result — a 362.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL — is not a marginal edge but a categorical gap that reflects a different performance class entirely. The GTX 1050 Ti’s average benchmark score of 4,193 places it 7% above the Quadro K2000D’s 3,919, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (0.6% ahead) and NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (1.1% behind), showing it competes in a slightly higher tier than the K2000D, whose closest competitor is the Quadro 2000D at just 0.3% above it.

For users prioritizing compute performance, gaming capability, or modern API support, the GTX 1050 Ti is the only rational choice from this data. It offers 768 shading units versus 384, a 14 nm process versus 28 nm, and support for DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0). However, the Quadro K2000D is not without its merits: it draws 51 W versus 75 W, occupies a single slot versus dual-slot, and carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD compared to the GTX 1050 Ti’s 139 USD launch MSRP. The data suggests the K2000D’s value proposition rests entirely on its professional branding and lower power envelope, not on benchmark performance, where it loses decisively.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational and profound. The GTX 1050 Ti uses the GP107 chip on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung, while the Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip on the older Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process shrink explains the transistor density disparity: the GTX 1050 Ti packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, yielding 25.0M transistors per mm², whereas the K2000D fits just 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, at 10.8M per mm². The GTX 1050 Ti achieves more than double the transistor density, a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing node.

Core configurations reinforce the gap. The GTX 1050 Ti features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, versus the K2000D’s 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Every major compute resource is exactly doubled in the GTX 1050 Ti, which explains its compute supremacy. Clock speeds further widen the divide: the GTX 1050 Ti runs at a 1291 MHz base and 1392 MHz boost, while the K2000D’s base and boost clocks are not listed in the data, but its memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) trails the GTX 1050 Ti’s 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The memory systems differ in capacity — 4 GB versus 2 GB — though both use GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus; the GTX 1050 Ti’s bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s more than doubles the K2000D’s 64.00 GB/s.

API support also reflects the generational split. The GTX 1050 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 1050 Ti also offers FP16 compute at 33.41 GFLOPS, a feature entirely absent from the K2000D’s specifications. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1050 Ti versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the K2000D, which could impact data transfer in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1050 Ti wins in every measurable performance category from the data. Its pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s dwarfs the K2000D’s 7.632 GPixel/s, a 5.8x advantage that makes it vastly superior for any display-intensive task. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 66.82 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s, a 2.2x lead. FP32 compute tells the most dramatic story: 2.138 TFLOPS against 732.7 GFLOPS, a 2.9x difference. These metrics collectively indicate the GTX 1050 Ti handles gaming, general-purpose GPU compute, and modern graphics workloads with far greater ease.

The Quadro K2000D’s wins are narrower and non-performance-based. It consumes 51 W versus 75 W, making it more energy-efficient per watt of power draw, though not per unit of performance. It is a single-slot card versus dual-slot, which matters in dense workstation builds with limited expansion space. Its display outputs — 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 — differ from the GTX 1050 Ti’s 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, potentially suiting legacy display setups. The K2000D’s physical length of 202 mm (8 inches) versus 145 mm (5.7 inches) is longer, but both share the same 111 mm height. For users running multi-monitor DVI-based setups or constrained by slot width and power budgets, the K2000D holds a practical edge, but the data offers no benchmark where it outperforms the GTX 1050 Ti.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance in the head-to-head benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti wins the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 18,129 versus the Quadro K2000D’s 3,919, representing a 362.6% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti averages 4,193 across all its benchmarks, while the Quadro K2000D averages 3,919, giving the GTX 1050 Ti a 7% overall lead despite the K2000D having only a single benchmark result.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 112.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the K2000D has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, both on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175; both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K2000D draws 51 W, which is lower than the GTX 1050 Ti’s 75 W; both have a suggested PSU of 250 W and require no auxiliary power connectors.

Q: How do their physical dimensions and slot widths differ?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti is a dual-slot card measuring 145 mm in length, while the K2000D is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm; both are 111 mm tall.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it delivers a resounding verdict. The GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129 against the K2000D’s 3,919, a delta of 362.6% that places the consumer card in an entirely different performance stratum. To contextualize this gap, consider that the GTX 1050 Ti’s nearest rivals in overall average score — the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4,170 and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M at 4,241 — are within roughly 1-2% of its own average, whereas the K2000D’s closest competitor, the Quadro 2000D at 3,930, is separated by a similarly narrow margin. The head-to-head result, however, shows a chasm that no rival comparison captures.

This 362.6% delta is not an anomaly but a reflection of fundamental hardware differences. The GTX 1050 Ti’s 768 shading units, 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, and 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth provide the raw resources for OpenCL workloads; the K2000D’s 384 shading units, 732.7 GFLOPS, and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth are simply half or less across the board. The GTX 1050 Ti’s 14 nm process and Pascal architecture also enable higher clock speeds and memory efficiency, compounding the core count advantage. The result is that in any OpenCL compute task — be it physics simulation, image processing, or data-parallel workloads — the GTX 1050 Ti finishes in a fraction of the time, assuming the software can leverage the available parallelism.

Beyond the head-to-head, the GTX 1050 Ti’s benchmark suite offers additional context. Its Passmark G3D score of 6,340 and Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,652 indicate solid general graphics and compute performance, while its Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,001 and Metal score of 7,834 show modern API readiness. The K2000D has no comparable results in the data pack, meaning its OpenCL score of 3,919 stands as its only performance datapoint — a figure that aligns with its 23rd percentile ranking versus the GTX 1050 Ti’s 25th. The percentile difference is small, but the benchmark gap is enormous, suggesting the percentile ranking compresses a wide performance spread at the low end of the GPU market.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals the GTX 1050 Ti as a comprehensively superior product on paper, with each difference reinforcing the performance gap. The process node differs fundamentally: 14 nm (Samsung) for the GTX 1050 Ti versus 28 nm (TSMC) for the K2000D, leading to transistor counts of 3,300 million versus 1,270 million and densities of 25.0M/mm² versus 10.8M/mm². The die sizes are comparable — 132 mm² versus 118 mm² — but the GTX 1050 Ti packs 2.6x more transistors into a similar area, evidence of the advanced manufacturing process.

Core specifications show the GTX 1050 Ti with exactly double the shading units (768 vs 384), 1.5x the TMUs (48 vs 32), and 2x the ROPs (32 vs 16). Clock speeds are only partially listed for the K2000D, but the memory clock tells the story: 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), contributing to bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 2 GB, both GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The GTX 1050 Ti’s FP32 throughput of 2.138 TFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS, pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s complete the performance picture.

Power and physical specifications introduce the K2000D’s advantages. The TDP is 51 W versus 75 W, and the slot width is single-slot versus dual-slot. Both cards use no auxiliary power connectors and suggest a 250 W PSU, but the K2000D’s lower draw makes it feasible in more constrained systems. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1050 Ti, PCIe 2.0 x16 for the K2000D. Display outputs favor the K2000D for legacy setups with 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 1050 Ti offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. Physical dimensions show the GTX 1050 Ti is shorter at 145 mm versus 202 mm, both at 111 mm height. Release dates place the GTX 1050 Ti in 2016 and the K2000D in 2013, a three-year gap that explains the architectural leap, and the launch MSRP of 139 USD for the GTX 1050 Ti versus 599 USD for the K2000D underscores the generational price-performance shift.