NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 represent two very different design philosophies from the same manufacturer. The data shows a clear performance gap in compute workloads, with the GTX 1050 delivering a 288% higher score in the only common benchmark, but the Quadro K2000D retains relevance in specific professional contexts. This comparison is not about raw speed alone; it is about matching the right tool to the right task based on the benchmark results and architectural differences.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the available data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 is the overwhelmingly stronger performer. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 15,233 points, which is 11,314 points higher than the Quadro K2000D's 3,919 points. This represents a delta of -74.3% from the perspective of the Quadro, meaning the GTX 1050 is nearly four times faster in this compute-heavy workload. The GTX 1050 also shows its architectural superiority through a much higher pixel rate (46.56 GPixel/s vs 7.632 GPixel/s) and texture rate (58.20 GTexel/s vs 30.53 GTexel/s).

The Quadro K2000D, however, is not without a purpose. It is a professional workstation card with a launch MSRP of 599 USD, targeting a different market segment than the consumer-oriented GTX 1050, which has a launch MSRP of 109 USD. The data shows that the Quadro's benchmark score of 3,919 places it in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1050's average score of 3,629 places it in the 21st percentile. The Quadro's nearest rivals include other professional cards like the Quadro 2000D (scoring 3,930, a -0.3% delta). The GTX 1050's rivals are a mix of older and mobile parts, such as the GeForce GT 735M (scoring 3,616, a 0.4% delta).

The verdict is nuanced. If the priority is maximum theoretical compute performance, gaming capability, and modern API support, the GTX 1050 is the clear choice. If the priority is a legacy workstation environment with specific certified driver requirements and DVI-based display output, the Quadro K2000D may still be the only option, but the data strongly indicates it is a significantly slower product.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the shared test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 15,233 points, compared to the Quadro K2000D's 3,919 points, resulting in a deltaPct of -74.3% for the Quadro.

Q: How do their percentiles compare?

A: The Quadro K2000D is in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1050 is in the 21st percentile. The GTX 1050 has a lower average benchmark score of 3,629, while the Quadro has an average score of 3,919.

Q: What are the main architectural differences?

A: The Quadro K2000D is built on the Kepler architecture using a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the GTX 1050 uses the Pascal architecture on a 14 nm process from Samsung. The GTX 1050 also has significantly more shading units (640 vs 384), TMUs (40 vs 32), and ROPs (32 vs 16).

Q: Do they support the same modern APIs?

A: No. The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. However, the GTX 1050 has a higher memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s, compared to the Quadro K2000D's 64.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count and density?

A: The GTX 1050 has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, resulting in a density of 25.0M / mm². The Quadro K2000D has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, with a density of 10.8M / mm².

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting their different release eras and target markets. The Quadro K2000D is built on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. It packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 10.8M / mm². The GTX 1050, on the other hand, uses the Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a more advanced 14 nm process. This allows it to fit 3,300 million transistors into a slightly larger 132 mm² die, resulting in a much higher density of 25.0M / mm².

This fundamental difference in process technology and architecture leads to significant changes in core configuration. The GTX 1050 boasts 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). In contrast, the Quadro K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. The GTX 1050 also benefits from higher clock speeds, with a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz, whereas the Quadro K2000D's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data.

The memory architecture also differs. While both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, the GTX 1050 operates its memory at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), achieving a bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s. The Quadro K2000D's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of just 64.00 GB/s. This nearly 75% increase in bandwidth for the GTX 1050 has a direct impact on performance in memory-intensive tasks.

API support further separates the two. The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro K2000D is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. This means the GTX 1050 is better equipped for modern gaming and compute applications that leverage the latest API features. The GTX 1050 also has a higher FP32 performance of 1.862 TFLOPS, while the Quadro K2000D manages 732.7 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two cards reveal a clear generational and performance divide. The first major difference is the process node: the Quadro K2000D uses 28 nm, while the GTX 1050 uses 14 nm. This leads to the GTX 1050 having a higher transistor count (3,300 million vs 1,270 million) and a higher transistor density (25.0M / mm² vs 10.8M / mm²), despite a similar die size (132 mm² vs 118 mm²).

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The GTX 1050 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz, while the Quadro K2000D has no listed base or boost clocks. The memory clocks also differ significantly: the GTX 1050 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the Quadro K2000D runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

The core configurations are starkly different. The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to the Quadro K2000D's 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a massive difference in compute rates: the GTX 1050 achieves 1.862 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro K2000D achieves 732.7 GFLOPS. The pixel rate is also dramatically different, with the GTX 1050 at 46.56 GPixel/s versus the Quadro K2000D's 7.632 GPixel/s.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The GTX 1050 has a TDP of 75 W, while the Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W. The GTX 1050 is a dual-slot card measuring 145 mm in length, while the Quadro K2000D is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm in length. Both are 111 mm in height and require no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The bus interface is another difference: the GTX 1050 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro K2000D uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Display outputs are tailored to their respective markets. The GTX 1050 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Quadro K2000D offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The release dates also show their generational gap, with the Quadro K2000D releasing on 2013-02-28 and the GTX 1050 on 2016-10-24.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 scores 15,233 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3,919 points. This gives the GTX 1050 a win with a deltaPct of -74.3% from the Quadro's perspective. The Quadro's score is only 25.7% of the GTX 1050's score, indicating a massive performance gap in compute workloads.

This single result is supported by the architectural data. The GTX 1050's FP32 performance of 1.862 TFLOPS is more than double the Quadro K2000D's 732.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 1050 also has a significantly higher texture fill rate of 58.20 GTexel/s, compared to the Quadro K2000D's 30.53 GTexel/s. The pixel fill rate difference is even more pronounced, with the GTX 1050 delivering 46.56 GPixel/s versus the Quadro K2000D's 7.632 GPixel/s.

The memory bandwidth advantage also plays a role in this benchmark. The GTX 1050's 112.1 GB/s bandwidth allows for faster data transfer to and from the GPU, which is critical for OpenCL workloads. The Quadro K2000D's 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a significant bottleneck by comparison. The GTX 1050's higher shading unit count (640 vs 384) also contributes to its superior compute performance.

It is importantly the Quadro K2000D has a higher average benchmark score across all its tests (3,919) compared to the GTX 1050's average (3,629). However, this is because the GTX 1050 has many more benchmark results, including some that are not compute-heavy, such as Passmark DirectX tests. The GTX 1050's scores in those tests range from 20 (DirectX 12) to 83 (DirectX 9), while its Passmark G3D score is 5,028 and its Geekbench Metal score is 7,823. The Quadro K2000D only has the one Geekbench OpenCL score.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture of where each GPU excels. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 wins in every measurable performance category that is available in the data. It is the clear victor in compute performance, as evidenced by its Geekbench OpenCL score of 15,233 versus the Quadro K2000D's 3,919. It also wins on raw throughput metrics, with higher pixel rate (46.56 GPixel/s vs 7.632 GPixel/s), texture rate (58.20 GTexel/s vs 30.53 GTexel/s), and FP32 performance (1.862 TFLOPS vs 732.7 GFLOPS).

The GTX 1050's advantages extend to its memory subsystem, with 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the Quadro K2000D's 64.00 GB/s. This makes the GTX 1050 better suited for any workload that is memory-bandwidth sensitive. Its support for newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, also makes it the better choice for modern gaming and graphics applications that can leverage these features.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, despite its significant performance deficit, has a few areas where it could be considered the preferred option. The most notable is its lower TDP of 51 W, compared to the GTX 1050's 75 W. This makes the Quadro K2000D a more power-efficient choice for systems with strict power budgets. Its single-slot design, while longer at 202 mm, may be preferable in chassis with limited expansion slot space.

The Quadro K2000D also offers a different set of display outputs, with 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, which may be more compatible with legacy professional monitors. The GTX 1050 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Quadro K2000D's positioning in the professional Quadro line also suggests it may have certified drivers for specific workstation applications, although this is not explicitly stated in the data. In terms of pure performance, the GTX 1050 is the definitive winner, but the Quadro K2000D's unique professional characteristics give it a niche.