NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) and NVIDIA Quadro M4000M 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 1 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- Around 43% higher core clock speed: 1392 MHz vs 975 MHz
- Around 37% higher boost clock speed: 1392 MHz vs 1013 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 33% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 100 Watt
- Around 1% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6314 vs 6226
- Around 54% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 650 vs 423
- Around 6% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 20112 vs 18998
- Around 20% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 301.168 vs 251.464
- Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8496 vs 7602
- Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3687 vs 2749
- Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3336 vs 3093
- Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8496 vs 7602
- Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3687 vs 2749
- Around 8% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3336 vs 3093
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 25 October 2016 vs 18 August 2015 |
Core clock speed | 1392 MHz vs 975 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz vs 1013 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 100 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6314 vs 6226 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 650 vs 423 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 20112 vs 18998 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 301.168 vs 251.464 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8496 vs 7602 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3687 vs 2749 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3336 vs 3093 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8496 vs 7602 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3687 vs 2749 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3336 vs 3093 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
- Around 17% higher texture fill rate: 78 GTexel / s vs 66.82 GTexel / s
- Around 67% higher pipelines: 1,280 vs 768
- Around 17% better floating-point performance: 2,496 gflops vs 2,138 gflops
- 716x more memory clock speed: 5012 MHz vs 7 GB/s
- Around 7% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 81.104 vs 75.758
- Around 46% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1235.338 vs 843.503
- Around 21% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.157 vs 5.071
- 2.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 68.443 vs 24.676
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 78 GTexel / s vs 66.82 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1,280 vs 768 |
Floating-point performance | 2,496 gflops vs 2,138 gflops |
Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz vs 7 GB/s |
Benchmarks | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 81.104 vs 75.758 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1235.338 vs 843.503 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 6.157 vs 5.071 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 68.443 vs 24.676 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop)
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M4000M
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) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) | NVIDIA Quadro M4000M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 6314 | 6226 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 650 | 423 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 20112 | 18998 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 75.758 | 81.104 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 843.503 | 1235.338 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 5.071 | 6.157 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 24.676 | 68.443 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 301.168 | 251.464 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 8496 | 7602 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3687 | 2749 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3336 | 3093 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 8496 | 7602 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3687 | 2749 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3336 | 3093 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 2338 | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) | NVIDIA Quadro M4000M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell 2.0 |
Code name | GP107 | GM204 |
Launch date | 25 October 2016 | 18 August 2015 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $139 | |
Place in performance rating | 473 | 547 |
Price now | $159.99 | |
Type | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Value for money (0-100) | 46.07 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | 1013 MHz |
Core clock speed | 1392 MHz | 975 MHz |
CUDA cores | 768 | |
Floating-point performance | 2,138 gflops | 2,496 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | |
Pipelines | 768 | 1,280 |
Texture fill rate | 66.82 GTexel / s | 78 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
Transistor count | 3,300 million | 5,200 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
G-SYNC support | ||
Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | 145 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Vulkan | ||
Shader Model | 5.0 | |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 112 GB / s | 160 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 7 GB/s | 5012 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
3D Vision | ||
Ansel | ||
CUDA | ||
Multi Monitor | ||
Multi-Projection | ||
VR Ready | ||
3D Vision Pro | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus |