GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs Quadro K2200M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K2200M with GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1050 3 GB outperforms K2200M by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 477 | 385 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 19 July 2014 (10 years ago) | 21 May 2018 (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 | 640 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 1392 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1518 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.68 | 72.86 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8538 gflops | 2.332 gflops |
| ROPs | 16 | 24 |
| TMUs | 40 | 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 | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5012 MHz | 7008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 84.1 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
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 |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | 6.1 |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.99 | 13.25 |
| Recency | 19 July 2014 | 21 May 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 75 Watt |
K2200M has 15.4% lower power consumption.
GTX 1050 3 GB, on the other hand, has a 47.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2200M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K2200M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
