NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear generational mismatch. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 is decisively faster than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M in the one shared workload, confirming that its much newer architecture and higher specifications translate into a massive real-world performance advantage. The Quadro 3000M, a mobile workstation part from 2011, cannot compete with the 2016 GeForce entry-level card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark result between these two GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the outcome is not close. The GTX 1050 scores 15,233 points, while the Quadro 3000M scores 3,718 points. This represents a 75.6% deficit for the Quadro, meaning the GTX 1050 delivers roughly four times the compute performance of the older card.

This single result is the entire head-to-head dataset, and it is unambiguous. The GTX 1050 wins the only shared test outright, with the `winsB` field confirming a 1-0 victory. The margin is so large that it completely overshadows any of the Quadro’s other characteristics. The GTX 1050's raw score is not just higher; it is in a different performance class. For context, the Quadro 3000M’s OpenCL score of 3,718 places it in the 22nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1050’s much higher score places it in the 21st percentile. This seemingly contradictory percentile data is explained by the fact that the GTX 1050 has many more benchmark results across a wider variety of tests (including 3DMark and Passmark), while the Quadro only has a single OpenCL data point. The overall average benchmark score for the GTX 1050 is 3,629, which is lower than its OpenCL score due to the inclusion of other, less demanding tests. However, for the one test where they are directly compared, the GTX 1050 is overwhelmingly superior.

Where Each One Wins

Given the data, the GTX 1050 is the winner in virtually every relevant compute scenario. Its victory in the Geekbench OpenCL test indicates superior performance in general-purpose GPU computing tasks, which is the foundation for both gaming and professional applications. The GTX 1050's architecture and specifications are simply from a different era, allowing it to dominate the older Quadro in raw throughput.

The Quadro 3000M, however, is not without a theoretical niche. As a professional mobile workstation part from the Fermi generation, its intended role was in certified professional applications, not consumer gaming. The data shows it is competitive with other older mobile GPUs; its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, has an average score of 3,717 with a deltaPct of 0%, indicating essentially identical performance. It also edges out the AMD Radeon HD 6770 by 1.9%. Therefore, the Quadro 3000M wins in the context of its own generation, being a capable part for its time. It is also the only one of the two with a memory bus width of 256 bit, which could be beneficial in certain legacy professional workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth. But in any direct comparison against the GTX 1050, the Quadro's strengths are irrelevant, as the GTX 1050's sheer compute power overwhelms it.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1050 scores 15,233 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 3000M scores 3,718. This makes the GTX 1050 75.6% faster in this specific test.

Q: Does the Quadro 3000M win any benchmark against the GTX 1050?

A: No. In the only head-to-head benchmark test available (Geekbench OpenCL), the GTX 1050 wins. The data shows a 1-0 win count in favor of the GTX 1050.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Quadro 3000M has an average benchmark score of 3,718. The GTX 1050 has an average benchmark score of 3,629, which is lower than its OpenCL score because it is averaged across many other tests like Passmark and 3DMark.

Q: How does the Quadro 3000M compare to its own rivals like the GT 740M?

A: The Quadro 3000M is statistically tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, which has an average score of 3,717 and a 0% deltaPct. It also performs slightly better than the AMD Radeon HD 6770, beating it by 1.9%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 1050 has a significantly higher pixel rate of 46.56 GPixel/s, compared to the Quadro 3000M's 4.500 GPixel/s. This indicates the GTX 1050 can fill frames at a much faster rate.

Q: Which GPU is better for modern gaming APIs?

A: The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, making it fully compatible with modern games. The Quadro 3000M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed, limiting its use in current titles.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification, reflecting their different generations and purposes.

• Process Node: The Quadro 3000M uses a 40 nm process, while the GTX 1050 uses a much more advanced 14 nm process from Samsung. This is a primary driver of the performance gap.
• Transistors & Die Size: The Quadro 3000M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The GTX 1050 has 3,300 million transistors on a much smaller 132 mm² die, resulting in a much higher transistor density of 25.0M / mm² compared to 5.9M / mm².
• Memory Clock & Bandwidth: The Quadro 3000M runs its memory at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) with a 256-bit bus, yielding 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1050 runs its memory at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) with a 128-bit bus, yielding a higher 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth.
• Shading Units: The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, a massive increase over the Quadro 3000M's 240.
• Texture & Pixel Rates: The GTX 1050's texture rate of 58.20 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 46.56 GPixel/s are vastly superior to the Quadro 3000M's 18.00 GTexel/s and 4.500 GPixel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The GTX 1050 has an FP32 performance of 1.862 TFLOPS, while the Quadro 3000M is limited to 432.0 GFLOPS.
• Bus Interface & Dimensions: The Quadro 3000M is an MXM-B (3.0) module, while the GTX 1050 uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 slot. The GTX 1050 has defined dimensions of 145 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Quadro's dimensions are listed as portable-device dependent.
• Clock Speeds: The Quadro 3000M has no listed base or boost clock, while the GTX 1050 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs are built on completely different architectures, explaining the substantial performance disparity.

• Core Architecture: The Quadro 3000M is based on the Fermi architecture using the GF104 chip. The GTX 1050 is based on the much newer Pascal architecture using the GP107 chip.
• Generation: The Quadro belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation, while the GTX 1050 is part of the GeForce 10 series. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The GTX 1050's predecessor is the GeForce 900 series and its successor is the GeForce 20 series.
• API Support: The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 3000M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed, a critical limitation for modern software.
• Features & Outputs: The GTX 1050 has a dedicated FP16 performance of 29.10 GFLOPS, while the Quadro has none listed. The GTX 1050 also features standard display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), whereas the Quadro's outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in.
• Manufacturing: The GTX 1050 is manufactured by Samsung, while the Quadro 3000M is manufactured by TSMC.

The Verdict

The data leads to an inescapable conclusion: choose the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 for any task requiring modern performance. It is 75.6% faster in the only shared benchmark and offers superior specifications across the board, including a higher pixel rate, more shading units, and greater memory bandwidth. Its support for modern APIs like Vulkan and DirectX 12 (12_1) ensures compatibility with current software, a significant advantage over the Quadro's older feature set. The GTX 1050 is the clear choice for gaming, general compute, and any application that can leverage its Pascal architecture.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M should only be considered in a very specific historical context. If you are maintaining legacy professional systems that require this specific MXM module, it is a known quantity that performs on par with its contemporaries like the GT 740M. Its 256-bit memory bus may be useful for certain older workstation applications that were optimized for that configuration. However, its performance is so far behind the GTX 1050 that it cannot be recommended for any new purchase or upgrade. The GTX 1050 is the definitive winner in this comparison, and the Quadro 3000M is relegated to a relic of its era.