NVIDIA Quadro P4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop)
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) 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 Quadro P4000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 month(s) later
- Around 6% higher boost clock speed: 1480 MHz vs 1392 MHz
- 2.5x more texture fill rate: 165.8 GTexel / s vs 66.82 GTexel / s
- 2.3x more pipelines: 1792 vs 768
- 2.5x better floating-point performance: 5,304 gflops vs 2,138 gflops
- 2x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
- 1086.3x more memory clock speed: 7604 MHz vs 7 GB/s
- Around 82% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 11545 vs 6332
- Around 22% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 795 vs 650
- 2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 42289 vs 20732
- 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 152.325 vs 75.758
- Around 89% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1590.392 vs 843.503
- 2.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 11.365 vs 5.071
- Around 86% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 45.977 vs 24.676
- 2.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 751.626 vs 301.168
- Around 80% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 15267 vs 8496
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 vs 3687
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3336
- Around 80% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 15267 vs 8496
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 vs 3687
- Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3336
- 3.7x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1115 vs 305
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 6 February 2017 vs 25 October 2016 |
Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz vs 1392 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 165.8 GTexel / s vs 66.82 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 1792 vs 768 |
Floating-point performance | 5,304 gflops vs 2,138 gflops |
Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 4 GB |
Memory clock speed | 7604 MHz vs 7 GB/s |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 11545 vs 6332 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 795 vs 650 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 42289 vs 20732 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.325 vs 75.758 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1590.392 vs 843.503 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.365 vs 5.071 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.977 vs 24.676 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 vs 301.168 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 vs 8496 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 vs 3687 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3336 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 vs 8496 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 vs 3687 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3336 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1115 vs 305 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop)
- Around 16% higher core clock speed: 1392 MHz vs 1202 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 16 nm
- Around 33% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 100 Watt
Core clock speed | 1392 MHz vs 1202 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 16 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt vs 100 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop)
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 |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 11545 | 6332 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 795 | 650 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 42289 | 20732 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 152.325 | 75.758 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 1590.392 | 843.503 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 11.365 | 5.071 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 45.977 | 24.676 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 751.626 | 301.168 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 15267 | 8496 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | 3687 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3336 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 15267 | 8496 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | 3687 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3336 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1115 | 305 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop) | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Pascal | Pascal |
Code name | GP104 | GP107 |
Launch date | 6 February 2017 | 25 October 2016 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | $139 |
Place in performance rating | 287 | 487 |
Price now | $799.99 | $159.99 |
Type | Workstation | Desktop |
Value for money (0-100) | 17.17 | 46.07 |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 1392 MHz |
Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | 1392 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 5,304 gflops | 2,138 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm |
Pipelines | 1792 | 768 |
Texture fill rate | 165.8 GTexel / s | 66.82 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
Transistor count | 7,200 million | 3,300 million |
CUDA cores | 768 | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Display Port | 1.4 | |
G-SYNC support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | 241 mm | 145 mm |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12.0 (12_1) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Shader Model | 5.1 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 192 GB / s | 112 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 7604 MHz | 7 GB/s |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
3D Stereo | ||
Mosaic | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus | ||
3D Vision | ||
Ansel | ||
CUDA | ||
Multi Monitor | ||
Multi-Projection | ||
VR Ready |