Quadro T2000 Mobile vs GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T2000 Mobile outperforms GTX 1050 Ti Mobile by a substantial 36% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 358 | 277 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 13.95 | 23.74 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1493 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 77.76 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.488 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 64 |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7 GB/s | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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
−33.9%
| 75−80
+33.9%
|
| 1440p | 25
−20%
| 30−35
+20%
|
| 4K | 17
−23.5%
| 21−24
+23.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 59
−37.3%
|
80−85
+37.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
−40.4%
|
65−70
+40.4%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
−25.9%
|
100−110
+25.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
−27.4%
|
75−80
+27.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 56
−32.1%
|
70−75
+32.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 49
−65.3%
|
80−85
+65.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 124
−87.9%
|
230−240
+87.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
−19.6%
|
110−120
+19.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
−50%
|
65−70
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 76
−34.2%
|
100−110
+34.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
−38.6%
|
75−80
+38.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55
−32.7%
|
70−75
+32.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
−121%
|
40−45
+121%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 52
−42.3%
|
70−75
+42.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
−17%
|
55−60
+17%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 42
−92.9%
|
80−85
+92.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
−27.9%
|
110−120
+27.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
−65%
|
65−70
+65%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 43
−83.7%
|
75−80
+83.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
−89.7%
|
70−75
+89.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−112%
|
55−60
+112%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 54
−88.9%
|
100−110
+88.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−32.1%
|
140−150
+32.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−47.8%
|
30−35
+47.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 29
−89.7%
|
55−60
+89.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
−69.2%
|
40−45
+69.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−40%
|
45−50
+40%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 32
−40.6%
|
45−50
+40.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
−64.7%
|
27−30
+64.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−45%
|
27−30
+45%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−31.4%
|
65−70
+31.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−36%
|
30−35
+36%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−35.7%
|
18−20
+35.7%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9
−122%
|
20−22
+122%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Ti Mobile and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is 34% faster in 1080p
- T2000 Mobile is 20% faster in 1440p
- T2000 Mobile is 24% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 129% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T2000 Mobile is ahead in 38 tests (57%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (43%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.07 | 20.52 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 60 Watt |
T2000 Mobile has a 36.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T2000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
