Geforce Gt 1030 Vs Gtx 1050
GTX 1050 vs GT 1030
Price at present 290$
Games supported 79%
Price now 115$
Games supported 68%
General info
Comparison of graphics carte compages, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.
| Place in functioning rating | 275 | 447 |
| Value for money | 9.fourteen | 10.10 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code proper name | N17P-G1 | N17P-G1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (5 years ago) | 17 May 2017 (five years agone) |
| Launch cost (MSRP) | $109 | $79 |
| Cost now | $290 (2.7x MSRP) | $115 (ane.5x MSRP) |
Value for money
To get the index we compare the characteristics of video cards and their relative prices.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such equally number of shaders, GPU core base clock and heave clock speeds, manufacturing procedure, texturing and adding speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise cess you have to consider their criterion and gaming test results. Note that ability consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 384 |
| CUDA cores | 640 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1290 MHz | 1228 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | 1670 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | fourteen nm |
| Thermal blueprint power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill up rate | 58.20 | 35.23 |
| Floating-bespeak performance | 1,862 gflops | 1,127 gflops |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a futurity reckoner configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and motorcoach (motherboard compatibility), additional ability connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Motorcoach support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe three.0 x16 | PCIe three.0 x4 |
| Length | 5.7" (14.v cm) | 145 mm |
| Height | four.38" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | i-slot |
| Recommended system ability (PSU) | 300 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI options | - | no data |
| SLI | - | no data |
Memory
Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Notation that GPUs integrated into processors take no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Retention type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | ii GB | iv GB |
| Memory motorcoach width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Retention clock speed | 7008 MHz | 6000 MHz |
| Retention bandwidth | 112 GB/south | 48.06 GB/south |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise merely for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA fries). 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 | DP 1.four, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI |
| Multi monitor back up | + | no information |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | ii.2 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will bear witness useful if y'all need some particular engineering for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | no information |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | + |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.iv | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.half-dozen |
| OpenCL | ane.ii | one.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | one.two.131 |
| CUDA | + | vi.1 |
Benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark functioning is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if yous detect some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we commonly set bug rapidly.
- Passmark
- 3DMark Vantage Operation
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Deject Gate GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- GeekBench v OpenCL
- 3DMark Ice Storm GPU
- GeekBench five Vulkan
- GeekBench 5 CUDA
This is probably the nearly ubiquitous criterion, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, ten, 11 and 12 (the terminal being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX ten benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with ii scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a ocean cavern, the other displaying a space fleet assault on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
3DMark xi is an obsolete DirectX xi benchmark by Futuremark. It used 4 tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken send, the other is an abased temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite existence done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded past Time Spy.
Criterion coverage: 17%
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 characteristic level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird infinite teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just similar Ice Storm criterion, information technology has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Criterion coverage: 14%
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery animate being seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Burn down Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: fourteen%
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics bill of fare criterion combined from 11 unlike examination scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Grouping.
Criterion coverage: 9%
Ice Tempest Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, office of 3DMark suite. Water ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle betwixt two space fleets about a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded past 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from xi different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: five%
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of GeForce GTX 1050 and GeForce GT 1030. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 279 Mh/s | no data |
| Decred / DCR (Decred) | 0.85 Gh/s | no data |
| Monero / XMR (CryptoNight) | 0.three kh/s | 0.11 kh/s |
| Zcash / ZEC (Equihash) | 143.76 Sol/s | no information |
Gaming operation
Let's run into how practiced the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games beyond different resolutions:
| Full Hd | 44 | 25 |
| 1440p | 24 | 21 |
| 4K | 22 | 9 |
- Full Hard disk
Depression Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
Loftier Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4KLoftier Preset
- 4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 38 +111% | 18 −111% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−xviii +88.ix% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Battlefield 5 | 56 +fourscore.6% | 31 −fourscore.half-dozen% |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 34 +47.8% | 23 −47.8% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | xvi−18 +54.v% | 11 −54.5% |
| Far Weep v | sixteen−18 −11.viii% | xix +eleven.8% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 41 +78.3% | 23 −78.3% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 −58.8% | 27 +58.8% |
| Hitman 3 | 16−xviii −29.four% | 22 +29.four% |
| Horizon Null Dawn | 16−eighteen +13.3% | 15 −13.3% |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 31 +244% | 9−10 −244% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27 +58.8% | 17 −58.8% |
| Scout Dogs: Legion | sixteen−xviii +30.eight% | 13 −30.eight% |
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 26 +117% | 12 −117% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | sixteen−xviii +88.9% | ix−10 −88.9% |
| Battlefield 5 | 43 +65.4% | 26 −65.4% |
| Call of Duty: Modernistic Warfare | 24 +167% | 9−10 −167% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 +143% | 7 −143% |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 +0% | 17 +0% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 38 +72.7% | 22 −72.7% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 49 +104% | 24 −104% |
| Hitman three | xvi−18 +vi.3% | 16 −half dozen.iii% |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | sixteen−xviii +41.7% | 12 −41.vii% |
| Metro Exodus | 17 +143% | 7 −143% |
| Scarlet Dead Redemption ii | 9 +0% | ix−10 +0% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24 +100% | 12 −100% |
| The Witcher iii: Wild Hunt | 38 +81% | 21 −81% |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | xvi−18 +41.seven% | 12 −41.7% |
| Assassinator's Creed Odyssey | xv +114% | 7 −114% |
| Assassinator's Creed Valhalla | 16−18 +88.nine% | 9−x −88.9% |
| Battlefield v | 36 +80% | 20 −80% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.nine% |
| Far Cry 5 | xvi−18 +13.3% | 15 −13.iii% |
| Far Weep New Dawn | 35 +94.4% | 18 −94.4% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34 +113% | sixteen −113% |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20 +66.7% | 12 −66.7% |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | sixteen−eighteen +183% | vi −183% |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Hitman 3 | xvi−xviii +88.9% | ix−10 −88.9% |
| Horizon Nix Dawn | 16−xviii +88.9% | ix−10 −88.nine% |
| Metro Exodus | xvi−18 +88.nine% | nine−10 −88.nine% |
| Crimson Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18 +88.ix% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | xvi−eighteen +88.9% | nine−ten −88.9% |
| Assassinator's Creed Odyssey | sixteen−eighteen +88.9% | ix−x −88.9% |
| Assassin'due south Creed Valhalla | 16−18 +88.9% | nine−10 −88.9% |
| Battlefield five | 27 +200% | 9−10 −200% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 +88.9% | ix−10 −88.9% |
| Far Cry 5 | xvi−18 +88.9% | 9−ten −88.9% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 25 +178% | ix−ten −178% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−xviii +88.nine% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Call of Duty: Modernistic Warfare | 16−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Hitman 3 | 16−18 +88.ix% | 9−10 −88.ix% |
| Horizon Cipher Dawn | 16−xviii +88.ix% | ix−ten −88.ix% |
| Metro Exodus | sixteen−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Crimson Dead Redemption ii | 16−eighteen +88.9% | 9−x −88.9% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−18 +750% | two −750% |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Chase | 15 +66.7% | nine−10 −66.7% |
| Assassin'due south Creed Odyssey | 16−18 +1600% | one −1600% |
| Assassin'southward Creed Valhalla | xvi−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.ix% |
| Battleground 5 | sixteen−18 +1600% | 1 −1600% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | sixteen−18 +88.ix% | nine−ten −88.ix% |
| Far Cry v | 16−18 +88.ix% | nine−10 −88.9% |
| Far Weep New Dawn | 11 +22.2% | 9−x −22.2% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 +143% | 7 −143% |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.nine% |
Advantages and disadvantages
| Functioning rating | 17.13 | 8.54 |
| Novelty | 25 October 2016 | 17 May 2017 |
| Cost | $109 | $79 |
| Memory double-decker width | 128 | 64 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 384 |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 | 48.06 |
| Thermal blueprint power (TDP) | 75 Watt | xxx Watt |
Judging past the results of constructed and gaming tests, Technical Metropolis recommends
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050
since it shows better performance.
Should you lot still have questions concerning pick between the reviewed GPUs, inquire them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Cast your vote
Practise you lot think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics carte.
Competitors of GeForce GTX 1050 by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GTX 1050 from AMD is Radeon R9 270X, which is slower by iii% and lower by 6 positions in our rating.
Hither are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTX 1050:
Competitors of GeForce GT 1030 by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GT 1030 from AMD is Radeon HD 6850 X2, which is well-nigh equal in speed and higher by 1 position in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GT 1030:
Like GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance more than or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
User rating
Here you can run across the user rating of the graphics cards, besides as charge per unit them yourself.
Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 on a calibration of i to 5:
Rate NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 on a scale of i to 5:
Questions and comments
Here you tin can ask a question about this comparing, concur or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.
Graphics settings
Screen resolution
FPS
Source: https://technical.city/en/video/GeForce-GTX-1050-vs-GeForce-GT-1030
0 Response to "Geforce Gt 1030 Vs Gtx 1050"
Post a Comment