NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) and NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 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 Ti (Desktop)
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- 2.3x more core clock speed: 1392 MHz vs 600 MHz
- Around 74% higher texture fill rate: 66.82 GTexel / s vs 38.4 GTexel / s
- 4x more pipelines: 768 vs 192
- 4.6x better floating-point performance: 2,138 gflops vs 462.3 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 55 nm
- Around 44% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 108 Watt
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- 7.7x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6332 vs 825
- 13.3x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 650 vs 49
- Around 55% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 20732 vs 13337
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3336 vs 3258
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3336 vs 3258
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 25 October 2016 vs 30 March 2009 |
| Core clock speed | 1392 MHz vs 600 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 66.82 GTexel / s vs 38.4 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 768 vs 192 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,138 gflops vs 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 55 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 108 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6332 vs 825 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 650 vs 49 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 20732 vs 13337 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3336 vs 3258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3336 vs 3258 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
- 228.6x more memory clock speed: 1600 MHz vs 7 GB/s
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz vs 7 GB/s |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop)
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 6332 | 825 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 650 | 49 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 20732 | 13337 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 75.758 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 843.503 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.071 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 24.676 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 301.168 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8496 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3687 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3336 | 3258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8496 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3687 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3336 | 3258 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 305 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Pascal | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GP107 | GT200B |
| Launch date | 25 October 2016 | 30 March 2009 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $139 | $799 |
| Place in performance rating | 487 | 1363 |
| Price now | $159.99 | $109.99 |
| Type | Desktop | Workstation |
| Value for money (0-100) | 46.07 | 9.89 |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1392 MHz | 600 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 768 | |
| Floating-point performance | 2,138 gflops | 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | |
| Pipelines | 768 | 192 |
| Texture fill rate | 66.82 GTexel / s | 38.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Transistor count | 3,300 million | 1,400 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| G-SYNC support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 198 mm |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB / s | 51.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7 GB/s | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision | ||
| Ansel | ||
| CUDA | ||
| Multi Monitor | ||
| Multi-Projection | ||
| VR Ready | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) vs
ATIFireGL V3400
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 4700 X2
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) vs
NVIDIAGRID K240Q
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) vs
AMDRadeon R7 A265
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) vs
AMDRadeon RX 470 (Laptop)
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) vs
AMDRadeon RX 560X (Laptop)
