GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile vs Quadro M4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M4000 with GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
M4000 outperforms GTX 1050 Mobile by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 316 | 412 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 98 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.66 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.89 | 10.64 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GP107B |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $791 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 1664 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 773 MHz | 1354 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1493 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 80.39 | 59.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.573 TFLOPS | 1.911 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 104 | 40 |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 8 GB | 4000 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 7008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 192 GB/s | 112 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 | 4x DisplayPort | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
| HDCP | - | 2.2 |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | - | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 3.0 |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
| Ansel | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | + |
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:
| 900p | 100−110
+37%
| 73
−37%
|
| Full HD | 65−70
+41.3%
| 46
−41.3%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
+45.8%
| 24
−45.8%
|
| 4K | 21−24
+40%
| 15
−40%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.17 | no data |
| 1440p | 22.60 | no data |
| 4K | 37.67 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
This is how Quadro M4000 and GTX 1050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Quadro M4000 is 37% faster in 900p
- Quadro M4000 is 41% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M4000 is 46% faster in 1440p
- Quadro M4000 is 40% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 43 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.32 | 11.64 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 3 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4000 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro M4000 has a 48.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 104.8% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1050 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 60% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M4000 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile is a notebook 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.
