Gt 1030 Gddr5 Vs Gtx 1050
GTX 1050 vs GT 1030
Price now 290$
Games supported 79%
Price now 115$
Games supported 68%
Full general info
Comparison of graphics card architecture, marketplace segment, value for money and other general parameters.
| Place in operation rating | 275 | 448 |
| Value for coin | nine.14 | 10.08 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | N17P-G1 | N17P-G1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (v years agone) | 17 May 2017 (5 years agone) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $79 |
| Current toll | $290 (two.7x MSRP) | $115 (1.5x MSRP) |
Value for money
To get the index nosotros compare the characteristics of video cards and their relative prices.
Technical specs
Full general performance parameters such equally number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing procedure, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of operation, simply for precise assessment you have to consider their criterion and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards tin can well exceed their nominal TDP, peculiarly when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 384 |
| CUDA cores | 640 | no data |
| Cadre clock speed | 1290 MHz | 1228 MHz |
| Heave clock speed | 1392 MHz | 1670 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 1,800 1000000 |
| Manufacturing process technology | fourteen nm | 14 nm |
| Thermal blueprint power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no information |
| Texture fill rate | 58.xx | 35.23 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,862 gflops | one,127 gflops |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Information on compatibility with other calculator components. Useful when choosing a hereafter computer configuration or upgrading an existing 1. For desktop video cards information technology'southward interface and charabanc (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (ability supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCIe iii.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe iii.0 x4 |
| Length | 5.vii" (14.5 cm) | 145 mm |
| Height | 4.38" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Recommended organisation power (PSU) | 300 Watt | no information |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI options | - | no information |
| SLI | - | no data |
Retentiveness
Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, motorbus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Annotation that GPUs integrated into processors take no dedicated VRAM and apply a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Retentivity bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 6000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 48.06 GB/due south |
| Shared retentiveness | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a dominion, information in this department is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and blazon 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 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | 2.ii | no information |
| Thou-SYNC support | + | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you demand some detail engineering for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | no data |
| GPU Heave | iii.0 | no data |
| VR Set | + | + |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.v | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.ii | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | six.1 |
Benchmark performance
Not-gaming criterion performance comparison. Annotation that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark functioning rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you lot find some perceived inconsistencies, feel complimentary to speak up in comments department, nosotros ordinarily ready issues quickly.
- Passmark
- 3DMark Vantage Functioning
- 3DMark 11 Functioning GPU
- 3DMark Deject Gate GPU
- 3DMark Burn Strike Score
- 3DMark Burn down Strike Graphics
- GeekBench 5 OpenCL
- 3DMark Ice Storm GPU
- GeekBench 5 Vulkan
- GeekBench five CUDA
This is probably the most ubiquitous criterion, function of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. Information technology gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation nether various load, providing 4 split benchmarks for Direct3D versions ix, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics carte du jour with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base of operations located within a ocean cavern, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. Information technology was discontinued in April 2017, and Fourth dimension Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. Information technology used 4 tests based on ii scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken send, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is at present superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX xi feature level x criterion 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 like Ice Storm criterion, it has been discontinued in Jan 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 criterion for gaming PCs. It features two dissever tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Burn Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different examination scenarios. All these scenarios rely on straight usage of GPU's processing ability, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API past Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Water ice Tempest Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, role of 3DMark suite. Ice Tempest was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level nine to display a battle between ii infinite fleets nigh a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, information technology is at present superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics carte criterion combined from 11 dissimilar 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: 5%
Geekbench v is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on directly usage of GPU'due south processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: five%
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of GeForce GTX 1050 and GeForce GT 1030. Unremarkably 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/due south | no data |
Gaming performance
Let's see how proficient the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Item gaming criterion results are measured in FPS.
Here are the average frames per second in a large set up of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full Hd | 44 | 25 |
| 1440p | 24 | 21 |
| 4K | 22 | 9 |
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full Hard disk
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4KHigh Preset
- 4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin'south Creed Odyssey | 38 +111% | eighteen −111% |
| Assassin'due south Creed Valhalla | xvi−xviii +88.9% | ix−10 −88.ix% |
| Battlefield v | 56 +80.vi% | 31 −eighty.6% |
| Telephone call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 34 +47.8% | 23 −47.eight% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 +54.5% | xi −54.5% |
| Far Cry v | xvi−18 −xi.eight% | nineteen +11.8% |
| Far Weep New Dawn | 41 +78.3% | 23 −78.3% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−xviii −58.8% | 27 +58.8% |
| Hitman three | xvi−xviii −29.4% | 22 +29.4% |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18 +thirteen.three% | fifteen −xiii.3% |
| Red Expressionless Redemption two | 31 +244% | 9−10 −244% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27 +58.8% | 17 −58.8% |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18 +30.eight% | thirteen −30.viii% |
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 26 +117% | 12 −117% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | xvi−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Battlefield 5 | 43 +65.4% | 26 −65.4% |
| Telephone call of Duty: Modernistic Warfare | 24 +167% | nine−10 −167% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | sixteen−18 +143% | 7 −143% |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 +0% | 17 +0% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 38 +72.seven% | 22 −72.seven% |
| Forza Horizon iv | 49 +104% | 24 −104% |
| Hitman iii | 16−18 +six.3% | 16 −6.three% |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | sixteen−xviii +41.7% | 12 −41.vii% |
| Metro Exodus | 17 +143% | 7 −143% |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9 +0% | 9−10 +0% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24 +100% | 12 −100% |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38 +81% | 21 −81% |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18 +41.7% | 12 −41.7% |
| Assassinator's Creed Odyssey | 15 +114% | 7 −114% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18 +88.9% | nine−10 −88.9% |
| Battlefield 5 | 36 +80% | twenty −lxxx% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 +88.9% | 9−x −88.9% |
| Far Cry 5 | sixteen−18 +13.3% | fifteen −thirteen.3% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35 +94.iv% | 18 −94.4% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34 +113% | 16 −113% |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20 +66.vii% | 12 −66.vii% |
| Lookout Dogs: Legion | 16−18 +183% | 6 −183% |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 16−18 +88.9% | nine−10 −88.9% |
| Hitman 3 | 16−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.nine% |
| Horizon Goose egg Dawn | xvi−eighteen +88.9% | nine−ten −88.9% |
| Metro Exodus | xvi−eighteen +88.9% | 9−x −88.nine% |
| Scarlet Dead Redemption 2 | sixteen−eighteen +88.9% | nine−x −88.9% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16−xviii +88.9% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 16−eighteen +88.9% | 9−10 −88.nine% |
| Assassinator'southward Creed Valhalla | 16−eighteen +88.9% | 9−x −88.ix% |
| Battlefield five | 27 +200% | nine−10 −200% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Far Cry 5 | xvi−xviii +88.nine% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Far Weep New Dawn | 25 +178% | 9−10 −178% |
| Forza Horizon iv | 16−18 +88.9% | nine−ten −88.9% |
| Picket Dogs: Legion | sixteen−18 +88.9% | nine−10 −88.9% |
| Phone call of Duty: Modern Warfare | xvi−eighteen +88.ix% | 9−x −88.9% |
| Hitman 3 | 16−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18 +88.ix% | nine−x −88.nine% |
| Metro Exodus | xvi−18 +88.ix% | ix−10 −88.nine% |
| Ruddy Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18 +88.9% | 9−x −88.9% |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | sixteen−18 +750% | 2 −750% |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15 +66.vii% | ix−x −66.seven% |
| Assassinator's Creed Odyssey | 16−18 +1600% | 1 −1600% |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18 +88.9% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Battlefield v | xvi−18 +1600% | 1 −1600% |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−xviii +88.ix% | 9−10 −88.9% |
| Far Weep 5 | xvi−eighteen +88.nine% | 9−10 −88.nine% |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 11 +22.two% | 9−x −22.2% |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 +143% | 7 −143% |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 16−18 +88.nine% | 9−10 −88.ix% |
Advantages and disadvantages
| Operation rating | 17.18 | eight.57 |
| Novelty | 25 October 2016 | 17 May 2017 |
| Cost | $109 | $79 |
| Retention bus width | 128 | 64 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 384 |
| Retentiveness bandwidth | 112 | 48.06 |
| Thermal pattern power (TDP) | 75 Watt | thirty Watt |
Judging by the results of synthetic and gaming tests, Technical City recommends
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050
since it shows improve performance.
Should you lot nevertheless take questions concerning option between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and nosotros shall respond.
Cast your vote
Do you call back we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" push near your favorite graphics carte.
Competitors of GeForce GTX 1050 by AMD
Nosotros believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GTX 1050 from AMD is Radeon R9 270X, which is slower by 3% and lower past six positions in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTX 1050:
Competitors of GeForce GT 1030 past AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GT 1030 from AMD is Radeon Hard disk 6850 X2, which is nearly equal in speed and college by 3 positions in our rating.
Hither are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GT 1030:
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with functioning more than or less close to those reviewed, providing y'all with more than options to consider.
User rating
Hither yous tin can see the user rating of the graphics cards, besides as rate them yourself.
Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 on a scale of 1 to 5:
Rate NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 on a calibration of one to v:
Questions and comments
Here you lot can ask a question well-nigh this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or study an fault or mismatch.
Graphics settings
Screen resolution
FPS
Source: https://technical.city/en/video/GeForce-GTX-1050-vs-GeForce-GT-1030
0 Response to "Gt 1030 Gddr5 Vs Gtx 1050"
Post a Comment