NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q 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. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, 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, 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- Around 30% higher core clock speed: 999 MHz vs 771 MHz
- Around 69% higher boost clock speed: 1328 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 20% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14675 vs 12186
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6614 vs 6373
- Around 4% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6614 vs 6373
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 3 January 2018 vs 22 July 2014 |
Core clock speed | 999 MHz vs 771 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1328 MHz vs 784 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 108 Watt |
Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz vs 5400 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 14675 vs 12186 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6614 vs 6373 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6614 vs 6373 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K4200
- Around 65% higher texture fill rate: 87.81 GTexel / s vs 53.12 GTexel / s
- 2.1x more pipelines: 1344 vs 640
- Around 24% better floating-point performance: 2,107 gflops vs 1,700 gflops
- Around 6% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4329 vs 4073
- Around 75% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 503 vs 288
- 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3382 vs 1491
- 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3311 vs 1341
- 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3382 vs 1491
- 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3311 vs 1341
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 87.81 GTexel / s vs 53.12 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1344 vs 640 |
Floating-point performance | 2,107 gflops vs 1,700 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 4329 vs 4073 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 503 vs 288 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3382 vs 1491 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3311 vs 1341 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3382 vs 1491 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3311 vs 1341 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K4200
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
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) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 4073 | 4329 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 288 | 503 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 14675 | 12186 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 6614 | 6373 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1491 | 3382 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1341 | 3311 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 6614 | 6373 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1491 | 3382 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1341 | 3311 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2076 | 0 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 33.016 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 736.063 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.73 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 31.588 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 70.194 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |
Code name | GP107 | GK104 |
Launch date | 3 January 2018 | 22 July 2014 |
Place in performance rating | 699 | 702 |
Type | Laptop | Workstation |
Launch price (MSRP) | $854.99 | |
Price now | $446.99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 11.92 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1328 MHz | 784 MHz |
Core clock speed | 999 MHz | 771 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 1,700 gflops | 2,107 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 640 | 1344 |
Texture fill rate | 53.12 GTexel / s | 87.81 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 108 Watt |
Transistor count | 3,300 million | 3,540 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | large | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
Length | 241 mm | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 112.1 GB / s | 172.8 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 5400 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 |