GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile vs Quadro P4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 with GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
P4000 outperforms GTX 1050 Mobile by a whopping 160% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 189 | 417 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 93 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 17.45 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.81 | 10.66 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GP107B |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (7 years ago) | 3 January 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | 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 | 1792 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | 1354 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 1493 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 165.8 | 59.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.304 TFLOPS | 1.911 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 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-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | 8 GB | 4000 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1901 MHz | 7008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 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 | + |
| HDCP | - | 2.2 |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
| 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 |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | 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 | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | + |
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 | 180−190
+147%
| 73
−147%
|
| Full HD | 69
+50%
| 46
−50%
|
| 1440p | 60−65
+150%
| 24
−150%
|
| 4K | 35−40
+133%
| 15
−133%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 11.81 | no data |
| 1440p | 13.58 | no data |
| 4K | 23.29 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+181%
|
21−24
−181%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+163%
|
24−27
−163%
|
| Elden Ring | 100−110
+191%
|
35−40
−191%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+72.5%
|
51
−72.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+181%
|
21−24
−181%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+163%
|
24−27
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+151%
|
55
−151%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+133%
|
27
−133%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+169%
|
45−50
−169%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+100%
|
44
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+181%
|
21−24
−181%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+163%
|
24−27
−163%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−24.8%
|
126
+24.8%
|
| Elden Ring | 100−110
+191%
|
35−40
−191%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+136%
|
36
−136%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+180%
|
51
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+165%
|
52
−165%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−105
+138%
|
42
−138%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+305%
|
19
−305%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+329%
|
41
−329%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+350%
|
14
−350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100−110
+159%
|
39
−159%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+169%
|
45−50
−169%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+70.2%
|
160−170
−70.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+138%
|
37
−138%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+181%
|
21−24
−181%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+163%
|
24−27
−163%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−13.9%
|
115
+13.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+158%
|
33
−158%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+273%
|
37
−273%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+507%
|
29
−507%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+169%
|
45−50
−169%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+194%
|
18−20
−194%
|
| Elden Ring | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+231%
|
16−18
−231%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+169%
|
65−70
−169%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| World of Tanks | 190−200
+161%
|
75−80
−161%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+127%
|
26
−127%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+343%
|
21
−343%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+219%
|
26
−219%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+183%
|
24−27
−183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+161%
|
18−20
−161%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+187%
|
30−33
−187%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+162%
|
21−24
−162%
|
| Elden Ring | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+150%
|
21−24
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+243%
|
7
−243%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+169%
|
35−40
−169%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+150%
|
21−24
−150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+154%
|
13
−154%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+61.8%
|
34
−61.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+273%
|
11
−273%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+179%
|
14−16
−179%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+220%
|
15
−220%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P4000 and GTX 1050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4000 is 147% faster in 900p
- Quadro P4000 is 50% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P4000 is 150% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P4000 is 133% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 507% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1050 Mobile is 25% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P4000 is ahead in 30 tests (73%)
- GTX 1050 Mobile is ahead in 2 tests (5%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (22%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.21 | 11.61 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 3 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4000 MB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro P4000 has a 160.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 month, and a 104.8% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1050 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
