NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

NVIDIA’s Quadro 2000 and GeForce GTX 1050 represent two very different eras of GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The Quadro 2000 is a Fermi-generation workstation card from late 2010, while the GTX 1050 is a Pascal-generation consumer card from late 2016. Across the single head-to-head benchmark available, the GTX 1050 dominates, but the full picture involves architecture, specifications, and use-case fit that go beyond raw frame rates.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is not close. The GTX 1050 scores 15,233, while the Quadro 2000 scores 3,898. That is a delta of -74.4%, meaning the GTX 1050 is roughly four times faster in this compute-oriented test. This is a decisive win for the GTX 1050, and it aligns with the massive generational leap in compute throughput between the two cards.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the GTX 1050’s OpenCL score is its strongest result, but it also posts competitive numbers elsewhere. Its Passmark G3D score is 5,028, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 8,995. The Quadro 2000, by contrast, only has a single benchmark entry in the data — that same Geekbench OpenCL run. This makes direct cross-test comparisons impossible, but the one shared test tells the story: the GTX 1050 is in a different performance class entirely.

The percentile rankings reinforce this. The GTX 1050 sits at the 21st percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000 sits at the 23rd percentile. Despite the GTX 1050’s overwhelming win in the head-to-head, the percentile data suggests both cards are near the bottom of the overall performance distribution. The GTX 1050’s average benchmark score is 3,629, which is actually lower than its individual OpenCL score due to the inclusion of weaker results like the Passmark DirectX 10 score of 24 and DirectX 12 score of 20. The Quadro 2000’s average is 3,898, because it has only that one strong OpenCL result.

The nearest rival data for each card shows how they compare in their respective peer groups. The Quadro 2000’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics with an average score of 3,883, which is just 0.4% higher. The GTX 1050’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M at 3,616, also 0.4% higher. Both cards are essentially tied with their closest peers, but the GTX 1050’s raw OpenCL output is far above its average, indicating it has significant compute headroom that other tests do not capture.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The GTX 1050 is dramatically faster. It scores 15,233 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the Quadro 2000’s 3,898. This represents a 74.4% advantage for the GTX 1050 in the only head-to-head test available.

Q: Do these cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, but with differences. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no listed Vulkan support. This means the GTX 1050 has broader API compatibility for newer titles and compute workloads.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 1050 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000 has 1 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, but only delivers 41.60 GB/s. The GTX 1050 has over 2.5 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The GTX 1050 is far ahead. It has a pixel rate of 46.56 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 58.20 GTexel/s. The Quadro 2000 offers 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s, respectively. The GTX 1050 is over 9 times faster in pixel throughput and nearly 3 times faster in texture throughput.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The Quadro 2000 was released on December 23, 2010, and the GTX 1050 was released on October 24, 2016. Both have successors: the Quadro Kepler for the Quadro 2000 and the GeForce 20 series for the GTX 1050.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The TDP difference is modest. The Quadro 2000 is rated at 62 W, while the GTX 1050 is rated at 75 W. Both require a 250 W suggested PSU and use no external power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two cards is foundational. The Quadro 2000 uses the GF106 chip based on Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is an older design with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 4.9 million per mm². Fermi was a compute-focused architecture, but it lacks the modern feature set of later designs.

The GTX 1050 uses the GP107 chip based on Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It packs 3,300 million transistors onto a much smaller 132 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². That is over five times the density of the Fermi chip. This density advantage is the primary driver of the GTX 1050’s superior performance per watt and per square millimeter.

The shading unit count reflects the architectural leap. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That is 3.3 times more shading units, 1.25 times more TMUs, and double the ROPs. The FP32 compute output confirms this: the GTX 1050 delivers 1.862 TFLOPS, compared to the Quadro 2000’s 480.0 GFLOPS. The GTX 1050 is nearly 4 times faster in single-precision floating-point math.

The GTX 1050 also introduces features the Quadro 2000 lacks. It has a Vulkan API rating of 1.4, whereas the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support listed. The GTX 1050 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro 2000 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The memory clocks also differ significantly: the Quadro 2000 runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), while the GTX 1050 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The GTX 1050’s memory clock is over 2.5 times higher.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 40 nm for the Quadro 2000 versus 14 nm for the GTX 1050. The foundry is TSMC for the Quadro 2000 and Samsung for the GTX 1050. Transistor count is 1,170 million versus 3,300 million, and die size is 238 mm² versus 132 mm².

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The Quadro 2000 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 650 MHz. The GTX 1050 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz, with a memory clock of 1752 MHz. Memory size is 1 GB versus 2 GB, and memory bandwidth is 41.60 GB/s versus 112.1 GB/s. The bus width is the same at 128 bit, but the effective speed differs greatly.

Compute resources are also different. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s versus 46.56 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s versus 58.20 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 480.0 GFLOPS versus 1.862 TFLOPS.

Physical and interface specs differ too. The Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card, 178 mm long, while the GTX 1050 is a dual-slot card, 145 mm long. Both are 111 mm tall. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 2000 and PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1050. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort for the Quadro 2000, versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the GTX 1050. TDP is 62 W versus 75 W, with neither using external power connectors. The launch MSRP for the Quadro 2000 was 599 USD, and for the GTX 1050 it was 109 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1050 wins in every benchmark category where data exists. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 15,233 dwarfs the Quadro 2000’s 3,898. It also has superior compute metrics across the board: higher pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and memory bandwidth. For any workload that relies on raw shading power, texture filtering, or memory bandwidth, the GTX 1050 is the clear choice.

The GTX 1050 also wins on API support. It has Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro 2000 lacks Vulkan and only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This makes the GTX 1050 more suitable for modern games and compute applications that use these APIs. Its 2 GB memory capacity is also double the Quadro 2000’s 1 GB, which matters for texture-heavy workloads or higher resolutions.

The Quadro 2000 has no benchmark wins in the data. However, it does have some situational advantages that are not captured in performance scores. It is a single-slot card, which can be beneficial in dense workstation builds with limited space. It also has a lower TDP of 62 W versus 75 W, which could be relevant in power-constrained systems. Its display outputs include dual DisplayPort, which is useful for multi-monitor professional setups. But these are physical and connectivity advantages, not performance ones.

In terms of benchmark percentile, the Quadro 2000 actually sits slightly higher at the 23rd percentile versus the GTX 1050’s 21st percentile. This is likely because the Quadro 2000’s single OpenCL score is relatively strong for its era, while the GTX 1050’s average is dragged down by very low Passmark results in legacy DirectX tests. However, this percentile difference is minor and does not offset the GTX 1050’s overwhelming win in the shared benchmark.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GTX 1050 is the faster card in every measurable performance metric. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 74.4% higher, its FP32 compute is nearly 4 times higher, and its memory bandwidth is 2.5 times higher. It also supports newer APIs and has double the memory capacity. Anyone choosing between these two for compute or gaming performance should pick the GTX 1050 without hesitation.

The Quadro 2000’s only advantages are physical and operational. It is a single-slot card, which makes it easier to fit into compact workstation chassis. It also has a slightly lower TDP and dual DisplayPort outputs, which may appeal to niche professional setups. However, these benefits come with a massive performance penalty and a launch MSRP of 599 USD versus 109 USD for the GTX 1050.

For a professional user who needs maximum compute throughput in a small physical footprint, the GTX 1050 is the better choice despite being a dual-slot card. For a legacy system that requires a single-slot, low-power card with DisplayPort outputs, the Quadro 2000 might still serve a purpose. But in terms of raw benchmark results, the GTX 1050 wins decisively, and the Quadro 2000 should only be considered for its form-factor and connectivity traits, not its performance.