Quadro FX 4800 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile with Quadro FX 4800, including specs and performance data.
1050 Ti Mobile outperforms 4800 by a whopping 479% 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 | 400 | 875 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 14.11 | 1.22 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | GT200B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 11 November 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,799 |
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 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1493 MHz | 602 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 77.76 | 38.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.488 TFLOPS | 0.4623 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 24 |
| TMUs | 48 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 288 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 192 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 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1536 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7 GB/s | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
| 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, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.3 |
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
+522%
| 9−10
−522%
|
| 1440p | 25
+525%
| 4−5
−525%
|
| 4K | 17
+750%
| 2−3
−750%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 199.89 |
| 1440p | no data | 449.75 |
| 4K | no data | 899.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+567%
|
12−14
−567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+520%
|
10−11
−520%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 56
+522%
|
9−10
−522%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 49
+513%
|
8−9
−513%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 124
+490%
|
21−24
−490%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+557%
|
14−16
−557%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+529%
|
7−8
−529%
|
| Fortnite | 76
+533%
|
12−14
−533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+533%
|
9−10
−533%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55
+511%
|
9−10
−511%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 52
+550%
|
8−9
−550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 42
+500%
|
7−8
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
+514%
|
14−16
−514%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+567%
|
6−7
−567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 43
+514%
|
7−8
−514%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 54
+500%
|
9−10
−500%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+483%
|
18−20
−483%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 29
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 32
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+538%
|
8−9
−538%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Ti Mobile and FX 4800 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is 522% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is 525% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is 750% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.14 | 2.27 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 11 November 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1536 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 150 Watt |
GTX 1050 Ti Mobile has a 478.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4800 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 4800 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.
