FirePro S10000 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile with FirePro S10000, including specs and performance data.
1050 Ti Mobile outperforms S10000 by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 407 | 465 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.24 |
| Power efficiency | 14.25 | 2.22 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | Tahiti |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (9 years ago) | 12 November 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 4096 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 1493 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 4,313 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 750 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 77.76 | 106.4 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.488 TFLOPS | 3.405 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 ×2 |
| TMUs | 48 | 112 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 288 KB | 448 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 768 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 305 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 7 GB/s | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 480 GB/s ×2 |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Ansel | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 56
+40%
| 40−45
−40%
|
| 1440p | 25
+38.9%
| 18−20
−38.9%
|
| 4K | 17
+41.7%
| 12−14
−41.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 89.98 |
| 1440p | no data | 199.94 |
| 4K | no data | 299.92 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+31.1%
|
45−50
−31.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+34.3%
|
35−40
−34.3%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+33.3%
|
60−65
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+37.8%
|
45−50
−37.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 56
+40%
|
40−45
−40%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 49
+40%
|
35−40
−40%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 124
+30.5%
|
95−100
−30.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+31.4%
|
70−75
−31.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
| Fortnite | 76
+38.2%
|
55−60
−38.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+42.5%
|
40−45
−42.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55
+37.5%
|
40−45
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+35.7%
|
14−16
−35.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 52
+30%
|
40−45
−30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+34.3%
|
35−40
−34.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 42
+40%
|
30−33
−40%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
+32.3%
|
65−70
−32.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 43
+43.3%
|
30−33
−43.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
+30%
|
30−33
−30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 54
+35%
|
40−45
−35%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+31.3%
|
80−85
−31.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 29
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+41.7%
|
24−27
−41.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 32
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+45.7%
|
35−40
−45.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Ti Mobile and S10000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is 40% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is 39% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is 42% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.91 | 10.85 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 12 November 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 750 Watt |
GTX 1050 Ti Mobile has a 28.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.
S10000, on the other hand, has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro S10000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics card while FirePro S10000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
