ATI Radeon X1050 vs Quadro M2000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000M with Radeon X1050, including specs and performance data.

M2000M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
8.96
+6792%

M2000M outperforms ATI X1050 by a whopping 6792% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking4871437
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency11.160.37
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Rage 9 (2003−2006)
GPU code nameGM107RV370
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date3 December 2015 (9 years ago)7 December 2006 (18 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 cores640no data
Core clock speed1029 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1098 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million107 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt24 Watt
Texture fill rate43.921.600
Floating-point processing power1.405 TFLOPSno data
ROPs164
TMUs404

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR2
Maximum RAM amount4 GB128 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz333 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s5.328 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Display Port1.2no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-
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.

DirectX129.0
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.52.0
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA5.0-

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.

M2000M 8.96
+6792%
ATI X1050 0.13

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.

M2000M 3452
+6945%
ATI X1050 49

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 HD360−1
4K12-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 21−24 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 60−65 0−1
Hitman 3 16−18 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55 0−1
Metro Exodus 27−30 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 21−24 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 60−65 0−1
Hitman 3 16−18 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55 0−1
Metro Exodus 27−30 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72
+7100%
1−2
−7100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 21−24 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 60−65 0−1
Hitman 3 16−18 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 0−1
Hitman 3 12−14 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20 0−1
Metro Exodus 12−14 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40 0−1
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−12 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.96 0.13
Recency 3 December 2015 7 December 2006
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 110 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 24 Watt

M2000M has a 6792.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.

ATI X1050, on the other hand, has 129.2% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1050 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon X1050 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
Quadro M2000M
ATI Radeon X1050
Radeon X1050

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.6 500 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 20 votes

Rate Radeon X1050 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.