GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M represent two vastly different eras of mobile graphics, separated by five years of architectural evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, but the specification sheet alone tells a story of generational leaps in efficiency and raw compute. This analysis pits the Pascal-based GTX 1050 against the Fermi-based Quadro 2000M, interpreting the benchmark scores and architectural differences strictly from the provided facts.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data offers a single direct comparison point, but the implications for use-case scenarios are clear from the broader results. The GTX 1050 wins the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 15,233 against the Quadro 2000M’s 3,434. This represents a 343.6% advantage, placing the GTX 1050 in a different performance class altogether.

The GTX 1050’s benchmark profile shows strength across modern and legacy APIs. Its Passmark G3D score of 5,028 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,091 indicate a card capable of handling both rendering and compute tasks with reasonable fluency. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,995 and Metal score of 7,823 suggest it can handle modern graphics APIs effectively, making it suitable for contemporary gaming and general-purpose GPU workloads.

The Quadro 2000M, by contrast, has only one recorded benchmark score in the data: the Geekbench OpenCL result of 3,434. Its percentile rank is 21, identical to the GTX 1050’s percentile, but this is likely due to the sparse data set. The absence of DirectX 12, Vulkan, or modern compute scores in its profile indicates it would struggle with or simply not support the workloads that the GTX 1050 handles with ease. The Quadro 2000M’s likely niche would be legacy professional applications from its 2011 era, where its Fermi architecture and DDR3 memory were standard, but the data does not provide any scores to substantiate that claim.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast. The GTX 1050 is built on the GP107 chip using the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm process from Samsung, while the Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip with the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process from TSMC. This process shrink is the primary driver of the performance and efficiency differences.

The transistor counts are revealing. The GTX 1050 packs 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.0M / mm². The Quadro 2000M has only 1,170 million transistors on a significantly larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 4.9M / mm². This means the GTX 1050 crams nearly three times the transistors into roughly half the silicon area.

Core configuration differences are stark. The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 1050 offers more than three times the shading units and double the ROPs. Memory technology also diverges: the GTX 1050 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus delivering 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Quadro 2000M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus but only achieves 28.80 GB/s. That is a 3.9x bandwidth advantage for the GTX 1050.

Clock speeds further widen the gap. The GTX 1050 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz, while the Quadro 2000M has no listed base or boost clocks at all. The memory clocks also differ: the GTX 1050 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 2000M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The GTX 1050 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed.

The Verdict

The data points to an unambiguous recommendation. The GTX 1050 is superior in every measurable aspect, from raw compute to memory bandwidth and API support. Its FP32 performance of 1.862 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro 2000M’s 422.4 GFLOPS, a 4.4x difference. The pixel rate of 46.56 GPixel/s versus 4.400 GPixel/s and texture rate of 58.20 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s confirm the dominance.

For anyone choosing between these two, the GTX 1050 is the clear pick for any modern workload, including gaming, general compute, or even entry-level professional tasks that can leverage its DirectX 12 and Vulkan capabilities. The Quadro 2000M, with its 55 W TDP versus the GTX 1050’s 75 W, does consume less power, but this efficiency advantage is irrelevant given the massive performance shortfall. The Quadro 2000M would only be a consideration for legacy software that specifically requires a Fermi-era Quadro driver, which is a niche scenario not supported by any positive benchmark evidence in the data.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1050 than the Quadro 2000M in OpenCL?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1050 scores 15,233 against the Quadro 2000M’s 3,434, representing a 343.6% advantage.

Q: Do both cards have the same amount of memory?

A: Yes, both feature 2 GB of memory, but the GTX 1050 uses GDDR5 with a bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s, whereas the Quadro 2000M uses DDR3 with a bandwidth of only 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Which card has better API support for modern games?

A: The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 2000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two?

A: The GTX 1050 has a transistor density of 25.0M / mm², while the Quadro 2000M has only 4.9M / mm², due to the GTX 1050’s 14 nm process versus the Quadro’s 40 nm process.

Q: Is the Quadro 2000M more power-efficient?

A: The Quadro 2000M has a lower TDP of 55 W compared to the GTX 1050’s 75 W, but this efficiency is offset by a substantially lower performance ceiling.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, while the Quadro 2000M has only 192, a 3.3x difference in raw shader throughput capacity.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The GTX 1050’s score of 15,233 obliterates the Quadro 2000M’s 3,434. The delta of 343.6% is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap. To put this in perspective, the GTX 1050’s nearest rivals in terms of average benchmark score include the AMD Radeon HD 6770 at 3,649 (a 0.5% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M at 3,616 (a 0.4% difference). The Quadro 2000M’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 at 3,431 (a 0.1% difference) and the Intel HD Graphics P4600 at 3,389 (a 1.3% difference).

This places the Quadro 2000M’s raw compute performance in the same league as integrated graphics from its era, while the GTX 1050 sits in a class with entry-level discrete desktop cards. The GTX 1050’s average benchmark score of 3,629 is slightly higher than the Quadro 2000M’s 3,434, but this average includes scores from multiple tests that the Quadro does not even have entries for, such as Passmark G3D and Geekbench Vulkan. The GTX 1050’s Passmark DirectX 9 score of 83 and DirectX 11 score of 38 further illustrate its ability to handle legacy APIs, while the Quadro 2000M has no comparable data.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows nearly every field differs between these two cards. The process node is the most fundamental: the GTX 1050 uses 14 nm from Samsung, while the Quadro 2000M uses 40 nm from TSMC. The GTX 1050’s chip, GP107, has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, versus the Quadro 2000M’s GF106 with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die.

Clock speeds are only listed for the GTX 1050, with a base of 1354 MHz and boost of 1455 MHz, while the Quadro 2000M has no base or boost clock data. Memory clocks also differ: 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the GTX 1050 versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the Quadro 2000M. Memory bandwidth is 112.1 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s, respectively.

The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the Quadro 2000M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 1050’s pixel rate is 46.56 GPixel/s and texture rate is 58.20 GTexel/s, compared to 4.400 GPixel/s and 17.60 GTexel/s for the Quadro 2000M. FP32 performance is 1.862 TFLOPS versus 422.4 GFLOPS. The GTX 1050 also lists FP16 performance at 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64), while the Quadro 2000M has no FP16 data.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1050 versus MXM-A (3.0) for the Quadro 2000M. The GTX 1050 is a dual-slot card with display outputs including DVI, HDMI 2.0, and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro 2000M is an MXM module with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The GTX 1050 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Quadro 2000M has a 55 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed. The GTX 1050’s dimensions are listed at 145 mm length and 111 mm height, while the Quadro 2000M has no physical dimensions recorded.