NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

NVIDIA’s Quadro K3000M and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti occupy the same 25th percentile in the benchmark database’s global rankings, yet their raw scores tell very different stories about their intended roles. The GTX 1050 Ti, a Pascal-generation consumer part, delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,129, while the Kepler-based Quadro K3000M trails far behind at 4,241. That is a delta of -76.6% for the Quadro, meaning the GTX 1050 Ti is more than four times faster in this compute workload. The data is unambiguous: the GTX 1050 Ti wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it does so by a margin that is difficult to overstate. However, the Quadro K3000M’s nearest rivals include the GTX 1050 Ti itself (with a delta of just 1.2%), which suggests that in the broader database context, these two GPUs are far closer in average benchmark scores than their OpenCL results imply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head comparison in the FACT PACK is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a landslide. The GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129, while the Quadro K3000M scores 4,241. The delta percentage of -76.6% indicates that the Quadro K3000M performs at roughly a quarter of the GTX 1050 Ti’s level in this test. This is not a marginal difference; it is a generational and architectural chasm. The GTX 1050 Ti’s nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (4,170, a 0.6% difference) and the Quadro K2100M (4,151, a 1% difference), which are all clustered near the Quadro K3000M’s score range. The GTX 1050 Ti’s OpenCL result is so far above that cluster that it almost seems like a different class of hardware.

The Quadro K3000M, however, is not without context. Its nearest rival list shows the AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4,268 (-0.6%), the GTX 460M at 4,282 (-1%), and the GTX 1050 Ti at 4,193 (1.2%). That last entry is curious: the GTX 1050 Ti’s average benchmark score (4,193) is nearly identical to the Quadro K3000M’s (4,241). Yet in the direct OpenCL head-to-head, the GTX 1050 Ti is 76.6% faster. This discrepancy highlights that average benchmark scores can mask extreme variance across different workload types. The GTX 1050 Ti’s other benchmark results—PassMark G3D at 6,340, Geekbench Vulkan at 10,001, and Geekbench Metal at 7,834—are all far higher than its OpenCL average would suggest, indicating that its average is dragged down by weaker legacy DirectX tests (PassMark DirectX 9 at 104, DirectX 10 at 31, DirectX 12 at 26). The Quadro K3000M has only one benchmark entry, so its average is exactly its OpenCL score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 18,129 versus the Quadro K3000M’s 4,241, a delta of -76.6% from the Quadro’s perspective.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K3000M has an average benchmark score of 4,241, while the GTX 1050 Ti averages 4,193. The GTX 1050 Ti’s nearest rival list shows a delta of -1.1% relative to the Quadro, meaning the Quadro is marginally ahead on average.

Q: Are these GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Quadro K3000M and the GTX 1050 Ti are listed at the 25th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, despite their vastly different OpenCL results.

Q: What is the GTX 1050 Ti’s strongest benchmark result?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti’s highest score is 18,129 in Geekbench OpenCL, followed by 10,001 in Geekbench Vulkan and 7,834 in Geekbench Metal.

Q: Does the Quadro K3000M have any benchmark results outside OpenCL?

A: No, the FACT PACK lists only one benchmark for the Quadro K3000M (Geekbench OpenCL at 4,241), while the GTX 1050 Ti has 11 results across various DirectX, OpenCL, Vulkan, and Metal tests.

Q: How close are these GPUs to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K3000M is within 1.3% of the AMD FirePro W2100 (4,295) and within 1.2% of the GTX 1050 Ti (4,193). The GTX 1050 Ti is within 1.8% of the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4,268) and within 1% of the Quadro K2100M (4,151).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two NVIDIA GPUs is vast, starting with the manufacturing process. The Quadro K3000M uses a 28 nm node at TSMC, while the GTX 1050 Ti uses a 14 nm node at Samsung. That process shrink allows the GTX 1050 Ti to pack 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 25.0M / mm². The Quadro K3000M, by contrast, crams 3,540 million transistors into a much larger 294 mm² die, yielding a density of just 12.0M / mm². The GTX 1050 Ti is nearly twice as dense, which explains how it can offer more shading units (768 vs. 576) while consuming the same 75 W TDP.

The chip designs are also fundamentally different. The Quadro K3000M is built on the Kepler architecture (chip GK104), while the GTX 1050 Ti uses Pascal (chip GP107). Kepler was designed for the Quadro Kx000M generation, with a base and boost clock of 654 MHz. Pascal, from the GeForce 10 series, runs at 1,291 MHz base and 1,392 MHz boost—more than double the clock speed. The memory subsystems differ too: the Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus (89.60 GB/s bandwidth), while the GTX 1050 Ti has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus (112.1 GB/s bandwidth). The GTX 1050 Ti achieves higher bandwidth with a narrower bus thanks to faster memory (7 Gbps effective vs. 2.8 Gbps effective).

Feature support also diverges. The GTX 1050 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K3000M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 1050 Ti also lists FP16 compute at 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64), a feature absent from the Quadro’s specifications. The Quadro’s FP32 output is 753.4 GFLOPS, while the GTX 1050 Ti delivers 2.138 TFLOPS—roughly 2.8 times higher.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is memory capacity: 2 GB on the Quadro K3000M versus 4 GB on the GTX 1050 Ti. Memory bandwidth also favors the GTX 1050 Ti at 112.1 GB/s versus 89.60 GB/s, despite the Quadro’s wider 256-bit bus. Clock speeds are dramatically different, with the GTX 1050 Ti’s boost clock of 1,392 MHz dwarfing the Quadro’s fixed 654 MHz. Shading units are 768 on the GTX 1050 Ti versus 576 on the Quadro, while TMUs are identical at 48 and ROPs are identical at 32.

Pixel and texture rates follow the clock advantage: the GTX 1050 Ti achieves 44.54 GPixel/s and 66.82 GTexel/s, while the Quadro manages 7.848 GPixel/s and 31.39 GTexel/s. The GTX 1050 Ti is a dual-slot card with a 145 mm length and 111 mm height, while the Quadro is an MXM Module with no listed dimensions. The GTX 1050 Ti uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and has display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a; the Quadro’s outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" and its bus is MXM-B (3.0). The GTX 1050 Ti lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Quadro lists none. Both have a 75 W TDP and no power connectors. The GTX 1050 Ti has a launch MSRP of 139 USD, while the Quadro has no launch MSRP listed. Release dates are also far apart: 2012-05-31 for the Quadro and 2016-10-24 for the GTX 1050 Ti.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-heavy workloads: the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. Its OpenCL score of 18,129 is more than four times the Quadro K3000M’s 4,241, and its pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s is over five times higher. The GTX 1050 Ti also offers double the memory (4 GB vs. 2 GB) and higher bandwidth (112.1 GB/s vs. 89.60 GB/s), making it the better choice for any task that relies on textures, shaders, or raw throughput. The Quadro K3000M’s only statistical edge is its average benchmark score (4,241 vs. 4,193), but that is a fragile lead built on a single result.

However, the Quadro K3000M is not without merit in its niche. Its MXM form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs suggest it was designed for mobile workstations, where power efficiency and specific driver certifications matter more than raw gaming performance. The GTX 1050 Ti’s dual-slot desktop design and consumer display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a) are clearly aimed at standard desktop builds. For professional users who need a Quadro-specific feature set (which is not detailed in the FACT PACK), the K3000M might still be relevant, but the data cannot substantiate that claim. Benchmark results indicate that for any performance-sensitive workload, the GTX 1050 Ti is the superior choice.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1050 Ti wins decisively in every measurable performance category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score (18,129) is the standout, but it also dominates in pixel rate (44.54 GPixel/s vs. 7.848 GPixel/s), texture rate (66.82 GTexel/s vs. 31.39 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (2.138 TFLOPS vs. 753.4 GFLOPS). It has more shading units (768 vs. 576), faster memory clocks (7 Gbps vs. 2.8 Gbps effective), and a more modern feature set (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4, FP16 support). For gaming, 3D rendering, or general-purpose GPU compute, the GTX 1050 Ti is the clear pick.

The Quadro K3000M’s wins are narrower and more qualitative. It has a wider memory bus (256-bit vs. 128-bit), which is a theoretical advantage for certain bandwidth-sensitive workloads, but its actual bandwidth is lower. Its MXM module form factor makes it suitable for laptops or compact systems where the GTX 1050 Ti’s dual-slot, 145 mm length would not fit. The Quadro also has a slight edge in average benchmark score (4,241 vs. 4,193), but that is a statistical artifact of the GTX 1050 Ti’s many low DirectX scores. In the end, the Quadro K3000M wins only in scenarios that require its specific mobile form factor or legacy driver ecosystem—neither of which can be quantified from the provided data. For anyone choosing between these two based on performance, the GTX 1050 Ti is the only rational selection.