NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark record splits sharply between the two NVIDIA parts. The Quadro M3000M takes exactly one win across the nine shared tests, while the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti claims the other eight. That single Quadro victory, however, is not a minor one: it wins Geekbench Vulkan by 66.7%, a massive margin that points to a real strength in that specific API workload. The GTX 1050 Ti, by contrast, dominates the Passmark suite and the OpenCL test, with advantages ranging from a modest 5.8% in DirectX 9 to a commanding 38.2% in the 2D graphics test.

The practical split is therefore clear. For Vulkan-based compute or rendering tasks, the Quadro M3000M is the stronger option, and its 66.7% lead over the GTX 1050 Ti in that test is the single largest delta in either direction across the entire comparison. For everything else in the recorded benchmarks, the GTX 1050 Ti is consistently ahead, including the two most general-purpose scores: Passmark G3D (6340 vs 5543, a 12.6% difference) and Geekbench OpenCL (18129 vs 16646, an 8.2% difference). The GTX 1050 Ti also holds the edge in the compute-focused Passmark GPU Compute test, where it scores 2652 against 2139, a 19.3% advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins more benchmarks overall?

A: The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti wins 8 of the 9 head-to-head tests. The Quadro M3000M wins only the Geekbench Vulkan test.

Q: How large is the Quadro M3000M's Vulkan advantage?

A: The Quadro scores 16668 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 10001 for the GTX 1050 Ti, a 66.7% lead. This is the largest performance gap in either direction in the entire comparison.

Q: Where does the GTX 1050 Ti show its biggest win?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti's largest margin is in Passmark G2D, where it scores 651 against 402, a 38.2% advantage. It also leads by 19.3% in Passmark GPU Compute (2652 vs 2139).

Q: How do the two compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro M3000M has a higher average benchmark score of 4621, while the GTX 1050 Ti averages 4193. Despite this, the GTX 1050 Ti wins the majority of individual tests.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both report DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support in the database.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both are listed with end-of-life production status. The Quadro M3000M was released in 2015, and the GTX 1050 Ti in 2016.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single most striking result is the Vulkan test. The Quadro M3000M records 16668 points against 10001 for the GTX 1050 Ti, a 66.7% superiority. No other benchmark comes close to that spread. This is not a marginal API quirk; it is a decisive victory that suggests the Quadro's Maxwell architecture handles the Vulkan workload with far greater efficiency than the Pascal-based GTX part in this specific test configuration.

The GTX 1050 Ti's wins are broad but varied in magnitude. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 18129 versus 16646, an 8.2% edge. The Passmark suite shows a consistent pattern: DirectX 10 (31 vs 26, a 16.1% lead), DirectX 11 (45 vs 42, a 6.7% lead), DirectX 12 (26 vs 23, an 11.5% lead), and DirectX 9 (104 vs 98, a 5.8% lead). The 2D test is where the GTX pulls away most clearly, 651 versus 402, a 38.2% advantage. In the 3D test, the GTX scores 6340 against 5543, a 12.6% margin, and in GPU compute it posts 2652 versus 2139, a 19.3% lead.

The overall picture is one of broad Pascal superiority in the majority of workloads, with a single notable exception. The GTX 1050 Ti's wins are not concentrated in one API family; they span OpenCL, DirectX 9 through 12, 2D, 3D, and compute. The Quadro's lone win, while enormous in percentage terms, is isolated to Vulkan. For users whose workload is Vulkan-centric, that one result may outweigh all others. For general-purpose graphics and compute, the GTX 1050 Ti is the data-backed choice.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly in their underlying specifications, which helps explain the benchmark outcomes. The Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip built on a 28 nm process, while the GTX 1050 Ti uses the GP107 chip on a 14 nm process from Samsung. The Quadro has a larger die at 398 mm² versus 132 mm², and more transistors at 5,200 million versus 3,300 million. However, the GTX 1050 Ti has a much higher transistor density at 25.0M / mm² compared to 13.1M / mm² for the Quadro.

Clock speeds favor the GTX 1050 Ti decisively. Its base clock is 1291 MHz with a boost of 1392 MHz, while the Quadro runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 1050 Ti runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the Quadro runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Despite this, the Quadro has a wider 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit on the GTX, giving the Quadro higher bandwidth at 160.4 GB/s against 112.1 GB/s. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory.

The compute configuration tells a nuanced story. The Quadro has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro's larger shading unit count does not translate into higher raw throughput, as the GTX 1050 Ti posts higher pixel rate (44.54 GPixel/s vs 29.57 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (66.82 GTexel/s vs 59.14 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (2.138 TFLOPS vs 1.892 TFLOPS). The GTX 1050 Ti also lists FP16 performance at 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Quadro's FP16 field is null.

Physical specifications differ as well. The Quadro is an MXM module with no power connectors, while the GTX 1050 Ti is a dual-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Both have a 75 W TDP and use PCIe 3.0 x16. The GTX 1050 Ti has defined dimensions of 145 mm length and 111 mm height, and its display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The GTX 1050 Ti has a launch MSRP of 139 USD; the Quadro has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational. The Quadro M3000M is built on Maxwell 2.0, while the GTX 1050 Ti is built on Pascal. That one-generation difference explains much of the performance disparity despite the Quadro's larger physical footprint. The Quadro's GM204 die is 398 mm² with 5,200 million transistors, whereas the GTX 1050 Ti's GP107 die is 132 mm² with 3,300 million transistors, fabricated on a 14 nm process from Samsung versus 28 nm from TSMC. The smaller, denser Pascal design achieves higher clocks and better efficiency.

The Quadro belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M generation (Mx000M series), with a predecessor of Quadro Kepler-M and a successor of Quadro Pascal-M. The GTX 1050 Ti belongs to the GeForce 10-series, with a predecessor of GeForce 900 and a successor of GeForce 20. Both are end-of-life, but their release dates differ by over a year: August 2015 for the Quadro, October 2016 for the GTX.

Core composition favors the Quadro numerically: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 768, 48, and 32 on the GTX. Yet the Pascal part wins on throughput metrics due to its much higher clocks. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support identical API versions: DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1050 Ti's FP16 capability at 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64) is present but minor, while the Quadro has no listed FP16 performance.

The memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The Quadro uses a 256-bit bus, giving it 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, but the GTX 1050 Ti's 128-bit bus with faster memory still achieves a respectable 112.1 GB/s. In practice, the GTX's higher clocks compensate for the narrower bus in most tests, though the Quadro's bandwidth advantage may contribute to its Vulkan win. The Quadro's MXM form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs mark it as a mobile workstation part, whereas the GTX 1050 Ti's dual-slot design and standard display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a) make it a conventional desktop card. These architectural and physical differences, combined with the 75 W TDP shared by both, define two very different products that nonetheless compete in the same performance bracket.