GeForce GTX 465 vs GTX 1050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 and GeForce GTX 465, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1050 outperforms GTX 465 by an impressive 91% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 457 | 634 |
| Place by popularity | 43 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.16 | 1.09 |
| Power efficiency | 12.50 | 2.46 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | GF100 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (9 years ago) | 31 May 2010 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $279 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1050 has 832% better value for money than GTX 465.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 352 |
| Core clock speed | 1290 MHz | 607 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 3,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 200 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 58.20 | 26.75 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.862 TFLOPS | 0.8554 TFLOPS |
| Compute performance | no data | 30x |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 44 |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | 704 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 512 KB |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 241 mm |
| Height | 4.38" (11.1 cm) | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 300 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
| SLI | - | 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 | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 1603 MHz (3206 data rate) |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 102.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | Two Dual Link DVIMini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | 2.2 | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
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 OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 42
+100%
| 21−24
−100%
|
| 1440p | 22
+120%
| 10−12
−120%
|
| 4K | 23
+91.7%
| 12−14
−91.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.60
+412%
| 13.29
−412%
|
| 1440p | 4.95
+463%
| 27.90
−463%
|
| 4K | 4.74
+391%
| 23.25
−391%
|
- GTX 1050 has 412% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1050 has 463% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1050 has 391% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 56
+107%
|
27−30
−107%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+103%
|
35−40
−103%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+92.6%
|
27−30
−92.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+110%
|
21−24
−110%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+92.7%
|
55−60
−92.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+105%
|
21−24
−105%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+91.4%
|
35−40
−91.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250
+92.3%
|
130−140
−92.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Dota 2 | 124
+107%
|
60−65
−107%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Fortnite | 53
+96.3%
|
27−30
−96.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 49
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 53
+96.3%
|
27−30
−96.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+110%
|
21−24
−110%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+92.7%
|
55−60
−92.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+100%
|
18−20
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+104%
|
55−60
−104%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+110%
|
21−24
−110%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Valorant | 28
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 42
+100%
|
21−24
−100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+104%
|
45−50
−104%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+111%
|
35−40
−111%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+95%
|
60−65
−95%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+117%
|
12−14
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+111%
|
27−30
−111%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+95.8%
|
24−27
−95.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
This is how GTX 1050 and GTX 465 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 is 100% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 is 120% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 is 92% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.12 | 6.35 |
| Recency | 25 October 2016 | 31 May 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 200 Watt |
GTX 1050 has a 91% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 167% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1050 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 465 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
