
FirePro S9000 vs GeForce GTX 1050 3GB

FirePro S9000
Popular choices:

GeForce GTX 1050 3GB
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The FirePro S9000 is positioned at rank #291 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro S9000
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB is significantly newer (2018 vs 2012). The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro S9000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the FirePro S9000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | FirePro S9000 | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+33.3%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $60 versus $156 for the FirePro S9000, it costs 62% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 162.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro S9000 | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+162.9%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($156) | ✅More affordable ($60) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro S9000 and GeForce GTX 1050 3GB

FirePro S9000
The FirePro S9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 24 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 900 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,059 points. Launch price was $2,499.

GeForce GTX 1050 3GB
The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1392 MHz to 1518 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,116 points.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro S9000 scores 5,059 and the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB reaches 5,116 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro S9000 is built on GCN 1.0 while the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 1,792 (FirePro S9000) vs 768 (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB). Raw compute: 3.226 TFLOPS (FirePro S9000) vs 2.332 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB).
| Feature | FirePro S9000 | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5,059 | 5,116+1% |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 1792+133% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.226 TFLOPS+38% | 2.332 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+33% | 24 |
| TMUs | 112+133% | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB+56% | 288 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 768 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro S9000 | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FirePro S9000 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB has 3 GB. The FirePro S9000 offers 33.3% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 96-bit.
| Feature | FirePro S9000 | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+33% | 3 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+33% | 96-bit |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 768 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FirePro S9000) vs 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 3.
| Feature | FirePro S9000 | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3+8% |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 6+100% | 3 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (FirePro S9000) vs NVENC 6.0 (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB). Decoder: UVD 3.2 vs NVDEC 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 (FirePro S9000) vs H.264,H.265,VP9 (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB).
| Feature | FirePro S9000 | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 1.0 | NVENC 6.0 |
| Decoder | UVD 3.2 | NVDEC 3.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 | H.264,H.265,VP9 |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro S9000 draws 225W versus the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB's 75W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro S9000) vs 300W (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 267mm vs 145mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 90°C vs 65.
| Feature | FirePro S9000 | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 75W-67% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 267mm | 145mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 90°C | 65-28% |
| Perf/Watt | 22.5 | 68.2+203% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro S9000 launched at $2499 MSRP and currently averages $156, while the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB launched at $129 and now averages $60. The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB costs 61.5% less ($96 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 32.4 (FirePro S9000) vs 85.3 (GeForce GTX 1050 3GB) — the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB offers 163.3% better value. The GeForce GTX 1050 3GB is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2012).
| Feature | FirePro S9000 | GeForce GTX 1050 3GB |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2499 | $129-95% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $156 | $60-62% |
| Performance per Dollar | 32.4 | 85.3+163% |
| Codename | Tahiti | GP107 |
| Release | August 24 2012 | May 21 2018 |
| Ranking | #441 | #440 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















