NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score, the Quadro P400 or the GTX 1050 Ti?

A: The Quadro P400 has a higher average benchmark score of 4684, while the GTX 1050 Ti averages 4193. This places the P400 in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 25th percentile for the 1050 Ti.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 Ti compare in raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti delivers 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is over three times the 641.0 GFLOPS of the Quadro P400. The 1050 Ti also has a texture rate of 66.82 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s for the P400.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 112.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth. The 1050 Ti has over three times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The Quadro P400 has a 30 W TDP and requires a 200 W suggested PSU. The GTX 1050 Ti has a 75 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU. Neither uses external power connectors.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The Quadro P400 is 150 mm long and 69 mm high, while the GTX 1050 Ti is 145 mm long and 111 mm high. The P400 is a single-slot card, while the 1050 Ti is dual-slot.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: they are built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture using the GP107 chip. Both are fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung, with identical transistor counts of 3,300 million and die sizes of 132 mm². The transistor density is the same at 25.0M per mm².

The critical differences lie in the execution resources. The Quadro P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is three times the shader count and TMU count, and double the ROP count. This explains the large gap in pixel rate: the 1050 Ti achieves 44.54 GPixel/s versus 20.03 GPixel/s for the P400.

Clock speeds also differ. The P400 runs at a base clock of 1228 MHz with a boost of 1252 MHz. The 1050 Ti runs at 1291 MHz base and 1392 MHz boost. The memory clocks diverge even more: the P400 uses 1002 MHz memory (4 Gbps effective), while the 1050 Ti uses 1752 MHz memory (7 Gbps effective).

The memory subsystem is a major architectural split. The P400 has a 64-bit bus with 2 GB capacity, while the 1050 Ti has a 128-bit bus with 4 GB capacity. The resulting bandwidth difference is stark: 32.06 GB/s versus 112.1 GB/s. The 1050 Ti also has a higher FP16 rate at 33.41 GFLOPS compared to 10.02 GFLOPS for the P400, though both use a 1:64 FP16 ratio.

Display outputs differ as well. The Quadro P400 has three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GTX 1050 Ti has one DVI, one HDMI 2.0, and one DisplayPort 1.4a. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

The release dates are close, with the GTX 1050 Ti launching in October 2016 and the Quadro P400 in February 2017. Both are end-of-life products, with the P400 succeeding Quadro Maxwell and preceding Quadro Volta, while the 1050 Ti succeeds GeForce 900 and precedes GeForce 20.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct head-to-head comparisons between these cards. The results are decisive in favor of the GTX 1050 Ti.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1050 Ti scores 18129, while the Quadro P400 scores 4249. This represents a delta of -76.6% for the P400, meaning the 1050 Ti is roughly 4.3 times faster in this compute workload. The OpenCL test stresses raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth, both areas where the 1050 Ti has a massive architectural advantage.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows but still favors the 1050 Ti. The 1050 Ti scores 10001, while the P400 scores 5119, a delta of -48.8%. Vulkan workloads often depend more on driver overhead and command buffer efficiency, which may explain why the gap is smaller than in OpenCL. Still, the 1050 Ti delivers nearly double the Vulkan performance.

The P400 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks in the database, while the 1050 Ti wins two. This is consistent with the average benchmark scores, where the P400 edges ahead in aggregate due to results from other tests not in the direct comparison. The P400's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and the AMD Radeon R5 M320, both within 0.6% of its average score. The GTX 1050 Ti's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M330 and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, again within about 1% of its average.

The Verdict

The GTX 1050 Ti is the clear performance winner in every direct benchmark recorded. Its 768 shaders, 4 GB memory, and 112.1 GB/s bandwidth give it a decisive edge in compute-heavy and graphics-heavy tasks. The data shows a 76.6% lead in OpenCL and a 48.8% lead in Vulkan. For any workload that depends on raw GPU throughput, the 1050 Ti is the correct choice.

The Quadro P400, despite its lower raw performance, holds a higher average benchmark score (4684 versus 4193) and a slightly better percentile ranking (27th versus 25th). This likely reflects its professional driver optimizations and different workload characteristics in the broader benchmark suite. The P400 also consumes half the power (30 W versus 75 W) and fits in a single slot with a smaller height profile.

For a builder prioritizing compute performance, gaming, or general graphics work, the GTX 1050 Ti is the obvious pick. For a system requiring minimal power draw, compact single-slot dimensions, or professional display outputs (three mini-DisplayPort connections), the Quadro P400 offers specific advantages. The P400's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database, while the 1050 Ti's launch MSRP is 139 USD.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Shading Units: 256 (P400) vs 768 (1050 Ti)
• TMUs: 16 vs 48
• ROPs: 16 vs 32
• Base Clock: 1228 MHz vs 1291 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1252 MHz vs 1392 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) vs 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 4 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 32.06 GB/s vs 112.1 GB/s
• Pixel Rate: 20.03 GPixel/s vs 44.54 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 20.03 GTexel/s vs 66.82 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 641.0 GFLOPS vs 2.138 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 10.02 GFLOPS vs 33.41 GFLOPS
• TDP: 30 W vs 75 W
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs Dual-slot
• Suggested PSU: 200 W vs 250 W
• Display Outputs: 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a vs 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Dimensions: 150 mm x 69 mm vs 145 mm x 111 mm
• Release Date: 2017-02-06 vs 2016-10-24
• Generation: Quadro Pascal (Px000) vs GeForce 10

Identical fields include the process node (14 nm), foundry (Samsung), transistor count (3,300 million), die size (132 mm²), transistor density (25.0M / mm²), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16), API support (DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), power connector requirement (none), and chip architecture (GP107 Pascal).

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1050 Ti wins decisively in compute-bound and graphics-bound tasks. Its triple shader count, quadruple memory bandwidth, and higher clocks make it the superior choice for gaming, 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales with raw FP32 throughput. The 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 performance is over three times the P400's 641.0 GFLOPS. The 66.82 GTexel/s texture rate and 44.54 GPixel/s pixel rate indicate strong fill-rate performance for texture-heavy scenes.

The Quadro P400 wins in scenarios where power efficiency and physical footprint matter more than raw speed. Its 30 W TDP makes it suitable for low-power systems or servers where thermal density is a concern. The single-slot design and 69 mm height allow installation in tight chassis. The three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs enable multi-display professional setups without adapters. The higher average benchmark score (4684) and better percentile ranking (27th versus 25th) suggest it performs relatively better in mixed workloads than its direct benchmark losses might imply.

The data does not support using the P400 for gaming or general compute tasks. The 1050 Ti wins both head-to-head tests by wide margins. However, the P400's power envelope is notable: it draws 30 W versus 75 W, and its suggested PSU is 200 W versus 250 W. For a system builder focused on maximum performance per watt, the P400 offers a compelling balance, though the 1050 Ti's absolute performance is far higher. The choice ultimately depends on whether the workload demands throughput or efficiency, and whether the chassis can accommodate a dual-slot 111 mm tall card.