Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 3GB Mobile vs Quadro P1000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P1000 with GeForce GTX 1050 3GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Nvidia GTX 1050 3GB Mobile outperforms P1000 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 421 | 407 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.59 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 20.08 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | no data |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 February 2017 (8 years ago) | April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $375 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1493 MHz | 1366 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1519 MHz | 1442 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 40 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 48.61 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.555 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 32 | no data |
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 | no data |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | MXM Module | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 4 GB | 3 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.13 GB/s | 84 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 | Portable Device Dependent | no data |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| Multi-Projection | no data | + |
| Multi Monitor | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | + |
| CUDA | 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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 46
+2.2%
| 45−50
−2.2%
|
| 4K | 11
+10%
| 10−12
−10%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.15 | no data |
| 4K | 34.09 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+5%
|
40−45
−5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 41
+2.5%
|
40−45
−2.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+5%
|
40−45
−5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33
−6.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 103
−6.8%
|
110−120
+6.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
| World of Tanks | 160−170
−4.9%
|
170−180
+4.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−5.3%
|
40−45
+5.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−5%
|
21−24
+5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+5%
|
40−45
−5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
−2.3%
|
90−95
+2.3%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50
−2.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−2.7%
|
75−80
+2.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 80−85
−2.4%
|
85−90
+2.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−4.3%
|
24−27
+4.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−3.8%
|
27−30
+3.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3.4%
|
30−33
+3.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−2.9%
|
35−40
+2.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P1000 and Nvidia GTX 1050 3GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- Quadro P1000 is 2% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P1000 is 10% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.18 | 11.94 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 MB |
Quadro P1000 has a 136433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Nvidia GTX 1050 3GB Mobile, on the other hand, has a 6.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P1000 and GeForce GTX 1050 3GB Mobile.
Be aware that Quadro P1000 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1050 3GB Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
