NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database. Out of three direct comparisons, the GTX 1050 takes all three, while the Quadro K2100M has zero wins. This is not a close contest by any measure. The GeForce card dominates across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan workloads, with margins that range from roughly half to nearly two-thirds ahead.

The Quadro K2100M, by contrast, does not hold a single advantage in any of the measured tests. Its average benchmark score sits at 4151, which places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GTX 1050, despite its lower percentile rank of 21, achieves an average score of 3629. This apparent contradiction is worth noting: the percentile figures are drawn from different pools of comparison data, while the direct head-to-head tests tell the actual story. In those direct tests, the GTX 1050 is the clear and consistent winner.

For users focused on compute-oriented workloads, the GTX 1050 is the obvious choice. Its OpenCL score of 15233 dwarfs the K2100M's 4587, a gap of 69.9 percent. That is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in raw throughput. Similarly, in Vulkan, the GTX 1050 posts 8995 versus 4343, a 51.7 percent advantage. Even in Metal, where the gap is smallest in relative terms, the GTX 1050 still leads by 55 percent with 7823 against 3524.

The Quadro K2100M does not win anywhere, but it is worth examining where it comes closest. In Vulkan, the delta is the smallest among the three tests, though still massive. In OpenCL, the gap is the widest, indicating that the GTX 1050's compute architecture is far more efficient for that API. If a workload depends heavily on OpenCL, the GTX 1050 is not merely better; it is in a different class.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural eras and manufacturing processes. The Quadro K2100M is built on Kepler, using the GK106S chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 1050 uses Pascal, built on the GP107 chip at 14 nm from Samsung. The process shrink alone explains much of the performance difference: 14 nm allows for nearly double the transistor density, with the GTX 1050 packing 25.0 million transistors per square millimeter versus 11.5 million for the K2100M.

Transistor counts tell a similar story. The GTX 1050 has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die. The K2100M has 2,540 million on a larger 221 mm² die. The Pascal chip achieves more transistors in less space, which translates directly into higher clock speeds and better efficiency. The GTX 1050's base clock of 1354 MHz and boost clock of 1455 MHz are more than double the K2100M's fixed 667 MHz.

Memory bandwidth also diverges sharply. Both cards use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 1050 runs its memory at 1752 MHz with an effective 7 Gbps, yielding 112.1 GB/s. The K2100M runs at 752 MHz with 3 Gbps effective, producing only 48.13 GB/s. That is a 2.33x difference in bandwidth, which heavily impacts texture-heavy and compute-heavy workloads.

The shading units differ as well: the GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Interestingly, the K2100M has more TMUs, but the GTX 1050 compensates with far higher clock speeds. Pixel rate and texture rate reflect this: the GTX 1050 posts 46.56 GPixel/s and 58.20 GTexel/s, versus 8.004 GPixel/s and 32.02 GTexel/s for the K2100M.

Feature support also differs. The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the K2100M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 1050 also has a higher TDP at 75 W versus 55 W, and it requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the K2100M uses an MXM module with no power connectors. The GTX 1050 is a dual-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with dedicated display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4a), whereas the K2100M's outputs are described as portable device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The GeForce GTX 1050, with an OpenCL score of 15233 versus 4587 for the Quadro K2100M, a 69.9 percent advantage.

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

A: Yes, both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 1050 achieves 112.1 GB/s bandwidth versus 48.13 GB/s for the K2100M.

Q: Is the Quadro K2100M newer than the GTX 1050?

A: No. The K2100M was released on 2013-07-22, while the GTX 1050 came later on 2016-10-24.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 1050, at 25.0M transistors per mm², compared to 11.5M for the K2100M.

Q: Does the GTX 1050 support newer DirectX features?

A: Yes, it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the K2100M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The K2100M has an average score of 4151, while the GTX 1050 averages 3629, but in direct head-to-head tests the GTX 1050 wins all three comparisons.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Process node: 28 nm (K2100M) versus 14 nm (GTX 1050)
• Foundry: TSMC versus Samsung
• Chip: GK106S versus GP107
• Transistors: 2,540 million versus 3,300 million
• Die size: 221 mm² versus 132 mm²
• Transistor density: 11.5M / mm² versus 25.0M / mm²
• Base clock: 667 MHz versus 1354 MHz
• Boost clock: 667 MHz versus 1455 MHz
• Memory clock: 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective) versus 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective)
• Memory bandwidth: 48.13 GB/s versus 112.1 GB/s
• Shading units: 576 versus 640
• TMUs: 48 versus 40
• ROPs: 16 versus 32
• Pixel rate: 8.004 GPixel/s versus 46.56 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 32.02 GTexel/s versus 58.20 GTexel/s
• FP32: 768.4 GFLOPS versus 1.862 TFLOPS
• FP16: not available versus 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: 55 W versus 75 W
• Slot width: MXM Module versus Dual-slot
• Bus interface: MXM-A (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.175 versus 1.4
• Suggested PSU: not specified versus 250 W
• Dimensions: not specified versus 145 mm length, 111 mm height
• Release date: 2013-07-22 versus 2016-10-24
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi-M versus GeForce 900
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell-M versus GeForce 20
• Generation: Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) versus GeForce 10
• Launch MSRP: not available versus 109 USD

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records three direct comparisons, all favoring the GTX 1050. The largest margin comes in OpenCL, where the GTX 1050 scores 15233 against 4587, a delta of negative 69.9 percent from the perspective of the K2100M. This means the K2100M achieves only about 30 percent of the GTX 1050's OpenCL performance. Such a gap suggests fundamental architectural efficiency differences, not just clock speed advantages.

In Metal, the GTX 1050 posts 7823 versus 3524, a 55 percent delta. This is the closest relative margin, but still decisive. The K2100M's Metal score is less than half of the GTX 1050's. For users running Metal-based applications, the GTX 1050 provides roughly double the performance.

In Vulkan, the GTX 1050 scores 8995 against 4343, a 51.7 percent delta. This is the middle ground between the other two tests. The K2100M's Vulkan support is older (1.2.175 versus 1.4), which may contribute to the gap, but the raw score difference is substantial regardless.

The aggregate picture is unambiguous: the GTX 1050 is between 51.7 percent and 69.9 percent ahead across all three APIs. No test shows the K2100M competitive. The wins are not narrow or workload-specific; they are broad and consistent. The data indicates that the GTX 1050 is the superior card for every measured compute scenario.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the GeForce GTX 1050 is the stronger GPU in every recorded benchmark. Its three head-to-head wins, with deltas ranging from 51.7 percent to 69.9 percent, leave no room for ambiguity. Users needing OpenCL compute performance should choose the GTX 1050 without hesitation, as its 15233 score is more than three times the K2100M's 4587. Similarly, Vulkan and Metal workloads will see roughly double the performance on the Pascal card.

The Quadro K2100M, despite its higher average benchmark score of 4151 and better percentile rank of 25 versus 21, does not win any direct comparison. Its strengths lie in a lower TDP of 55 W and a more compact MXM form factor, which may suit specific embedded or laptop designs. But for raw performance, it cannot match the GTX 1050.

The GTX 1050 also offers newer API support, with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, plus a higher memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s. Its 14 nm process and 3,300 million transistors deliver density and efficiency that the 28 nm Kepler chip cannot approach. The GTX 1050's launch MSRP was 109 USD, a figure that reflects its mainstream positioning, but the database does not record a comparable price for the K2100M.

For users with portable or low-power constraints, the K2100M's 55 W TDP and MXM module design might be relevant. For everyone else, the GTX 1050 is the clear choice based on the recorded benchmarks. It wins every test, often by large margins, and supports newer software standards. The verdict is simple: choose the GTX 1050 for performance, choose the K2100M only if the MXM form factor or lower power draw is a hard requirement.