Quadro M2000 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 Ti with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1050 Ti outperforms M2000 by an impressive 58% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 342 | 448 |
| Place by popularity | 4 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 13.97 | 4.09 |
| Power efficiency | 15.04 | 9.50 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | GM206 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $139 | $437.75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 1050 Ti has 242% better value for money than Quadro M2000.
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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1291 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 66.82 | 55.82 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.138 TFLOPS | 1.786 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 48 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 201 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | Up to 106 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | no data | + |
| 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 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 5.2 |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 51
+70%
| 30−35
−70%
|
| 1440p | 31
+72.2%
| 18−20
−72.2%
|
| 4K | 25
+78.6%
| 14−16
−78.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.73
+435%
| 14.59
−435%
|
| 1440p | 4.48
+442%
| 24.32
−442%
|
| 4K | 5.56
+462%
| 31.27
−462%
|
- GTX 1050 Ti has 435% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Ti has 442% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Ti has 462% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 63
+80%
|
35−40
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+72%
|
50−55
−72%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 69
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+66.7%
|
75−80
−66.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+69.2%
|
120−130
−69.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 141
+65.9%
|
85−90
−65.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| Fortnite | 65
+62.5%
|
40−45
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 64
+60%
|
40−45
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 64
+60%
|
40−45
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 49
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+66.7%
|
75−80
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+70%
|
30−33
−70%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+66.7%
|
75−80
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+66.7%
|
27−30
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+75%
|
24−27
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 36
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Valorant | 53
+76.7%
|
30−33
−76.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45
+66.7%
|
27−30
−66.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+62.9%
|
70−75
−62.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+61.1%
|
18−20
−61.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+60%
|
95−100
−60%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+64.2%
|
95−100
−64.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 63
+80%
|
35−40
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 11
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 13
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Ti and Quadro M2000 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Ti is 70% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Ti is 72% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Ti is 79% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.25 | 10.27 |
| Recency | 25 October 2016 | 8 April 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
GTX 1050 Ti has a 58.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 months, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a desktop card while Quadro M2000 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.
