NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook) vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook) and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 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 (Notebook)

• Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 6 month(s) later
• 2.2x more core clock speed: 1493 MHz vs 667 MHz
• 2.1x more boost clock speed: 1620 MHz vs 771 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 16 nm vs 28 nm
• 2x lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 150 Watt
• Around 17% higher memory clock speed: 7008 MHz vs 6008 MHz
• Around 8% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 20732 vs 19220
• Around 61% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 75.758 vs 47.147
• Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.071 vs 3.996
• 2.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 301.168 vs 115.307
• Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8496 vs 5946
• Around 43% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8496 vs 5946

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K5200

• Around 90% higher texture fill rate: 148.0 GTexel / s vs 77.76 GTexel / s
• 3x more pipelines: 2304 vs 768
• Around 43% better floating-point performance: 3,553 gflops vs 2,488 gflops
• 2x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
• Around 4% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6135 vs 5918
• Around 71% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 553 vs 323
• Around 52% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1278.433 vs 843.503
• 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 50.08 vs 24.676
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3708 vs 3687
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3353 vs 3336
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3708 vs 3687
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3353 vs 3336

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook)
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K5200

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	5918 6135
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	323 553
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	20732 19220
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	75.758 47.147
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	843.503 1278.433
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5.071 3.996
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	24.676 50.08
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	301.168 115.307
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8496 5946
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3687 3708
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3336 3353
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8496 5946
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3687 3708
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3336 3353

Compare specifications (specs)