NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 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 2 year(s) 3 month(s) later
• Around 33% higher core clock speed: 1392 MHz vs 1046 MHz
• Around 24% higher boost clock speed: 1392 MHz vs 1124 MHz
• Around 49% higher texture fill rate: 66.82 GTexel / s vs 44.96 GTexel / s
• Around 20% higher pipelines: 768 vs 640
• Around 49% better floating-point performance: 2,138 gflops vs 1,439 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 77% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6332 vs 3572
• Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 650 vs 548
• Around 72% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 20732 vs 12020
• Around 86% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 75.758 vs 40.695
• Around 43% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 843.503 vs 588.094
• Around 58% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.071 vs 3.205
• Around 81% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 301.168 vs 166.26
• Around 73% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8496 vs 4921
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3687 vs 1577
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3336 vs 1671
• Around 73% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8496 vs 4921
• 2.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3687 vs 1577
• 2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3336 vs 1671

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K2200

• Around 10% lower typical power consumption: 68 Watt vs 75 Watt
• 716x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 7 GB/s
• Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 30.455 vs 24.676
• 3.9x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1193 vs 305

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop)
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K2200

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	6332 3572
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	650 548
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	20732 12020
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	75.758 40.695
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	843.503 588.094
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5.071 3.205
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	24.676 30.455
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	301.168 166.26
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8496 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3687 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3336 1671
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8496 4921
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3687 1577
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3336 1671
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	305 1193

Compare specifications (specs)