NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop) vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop) and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop)

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 3 month(s) later
• Around 67% higher core clock speed: 1290 MHz vs 771 MHz
• Around 78% higher boost clock speed: 1392 MHz vs 784 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 44% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 108 Watt
• Around 30% higher memory clock speed: 7008 MHz vs 5400 MHz
• Around 16% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 5029 vs 4340
• Around 42% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 17466 vs 12321
• 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.209 vs 33.016
• Around 9% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 799.414 vs 736.063
• Around 66% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.536 vs 2.73
• 3.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.683 vs 70.194
• Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7043 vs 6373
• Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3685 vs 3382
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3360 vs 3311
• Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7043 vs 6373
• Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3685 vs 3382
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3360 vs 3311

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K4200

• Around 51% higher texture fill rate: 87.81 GTexel / s vs 58.2 GTexel / s
• 2.1x more pipelines: 1344 vs 640
• Around 13% better floating-point performance: 2,107 gflops vs 1,862 gflops
• Around 9% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 498 vs 457
• Around 3% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 31.588 vs 30.523

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop)
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4200

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	5029 4340
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	457 498
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	17466 12321
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	67.209 33.016
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	799.414 736.063
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4.536 2.73
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.523 31.588
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	223.683 70.194
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7043 6373
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3685 3382
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3360 3311
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7043 6373
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3685 3382
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3360 3311

Compare specifications (specs)