GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB vs Quadro FX 360M

Place in the ranking	1438	454
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	0.91	11.66
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	G86	GP107
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	9 May 2007 (18 years ago)	1 February 2019 (6 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	16	768
Core clock speed	400 MHz	1366 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1442 MHz
Number of transistors	210 million	3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	80 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	17 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	3.200	69.22
Floating-point processing power	0.0256 TFLOPS	2.215 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	24
TMUs	8	48
L1 Cache	no data	288 KB
L2 Cache	16 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).

Interface

PCIe 1.0 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	DDR2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	3 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	600 MHz	1752 MHz
Memory bandwidth	9.6 GB/s	84.1 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

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	1.1	6.1

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −5400%	55−60 +5400%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −5500%	280−290 +5500%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −5400%	55−60 +5400%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −5233%	160−170 +5233%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −5500%	280−290 +5500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −4900%	350−400 +4900%
Valorant	24−27 −5500%	1400−1450 +5500%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	12−14 −5317%	650−700 +5317%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −5400%	55−60 +5400%
Dota 2	9−10 −5456%	500−550 +5456%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −5233%	160−170 +5233%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −5500%	280−290 +5500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −4900%	350−400 +4900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −5500%	280−290 +5500%
Valorant	24−27 −5500%	1400−1450 +5500%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −5400%	55−60 +5400%
Dota 2	9−10 −5456%	500−550 +5456%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −5233%	160−170 +5233%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6 −5500%	280−290 +5500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −4900%	350−400 +4900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −5500%	280−290 +5500%
Valorant	24−27 −5500%	1400−1450 +5500%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −5400%	110−120 +5400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −5400%	110−120 +5400%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −5400%	55−60 +5400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −5400%	55−60 +5400%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −5257%	750−800 +5257%
Valorant	1−2 −5400%	55−60 +5400%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

1−2

−5400%

55−60
+5400%

4K
Epic

Fortnite

2−3
−5400%

110−120

+5400%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.20	11.29
Recency	9 May 2007	1 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	3 GB
Chip lithography	80 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	17 Watt	75 Watt

FX 360M has 341.2% lower power consumption.

GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB, on the other hand, has a 5545% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 360M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 360M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

Quadro FX 360M

GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Quadro FX 360M

Quadro NVS 140M

GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB

Radeon 860M

Quadro FX 360M

RTX 1000 Ada Generation Mobile

9400M (G) / ION (LE)

ATI HD 4270

Series X 6nm GPU

8400 Mobile IGP

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.3 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 360M on a scale of 1 to 5:

3 69 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 360M or GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.