GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Radeon 8065S
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 8065S with GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, including specs and performance data.
8065S outperforms 1050 Ti by a whopping 191% 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 | 99 | 392 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 7 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 12.67 |
| Power efficiency | 62.47 | 15.77 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2025−2026) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Gorgon Halo | GP107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2026 (recently) | 25 October 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $139 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 2560 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1295 MHz | 1291 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3000 MHz | 1392 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 480.0 | 66.82 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.138 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 160 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | no data |
| L1 Cache | no data | 288 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB | no data |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 7008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 112 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
| Ansel | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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 | 140−150
+186%
| 49
−186%
|
| 1440p | 85−90
+183%
| 30
−183%
|
| 4K | 75−80
+188%
| 26
−188%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.84 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.63 |
| 4K | no data | 5.35 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 130−140
+243%
|
40−45
−243%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+180%
|
85−90
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+221%
|
30−35
−221%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 120−130
+279%
|
30−35
−279%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 130−140
+243%
|
40−45
−243%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+129%
|
63
−129%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+180%
|
85−90
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+221%
|
30−35
−221%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+178%
|
50−55
−178%
|
| Fortnite | 190−200
+122%
|
85−90
−122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+149%
|
69
−149%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+204%
|
55
−204%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+109%
|
120−130
−109%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 130−140
+243%
|
40−45
−243%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+177%
|
52
−177%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+180%
|
85−90
−180%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+36.9%
|
200−210
−36.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+221%
|
30−35
−221%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+178%
|
50−55
−178%
|
| Fortnite | 190−200
+194%
|
65
−194%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+169%
|
64
−169%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140−150
+122%
|
64
−122%
|
| Metro Exodus | 100−110
+319%
|
26
−319%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+234%
|
50
−234%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+247%
|
49
−247%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+109%
|
120−130
−109%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+182%
|
51
−182%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+221%
|
30−35
−221%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+294%
|
36
−294%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+282%
|
45
−282%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+364%
|
36
−364%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+554%
|
26
−554%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 190−200
+324%
|
45
−324%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+297%
|
30−33
−297%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+178%
|
110−120
−178%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+228%
|
29
−228%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+258%
|
18−20
−258%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+110%
|
140−150
−110%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+208%
|
36
−208%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+293%
|
14−16
−293%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+226%
|
30−35
−226%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+250%
|
35−40
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90−95
+314%
|
21−24
−314%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 120−130
+249%
|
35−40
−249%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+350%
|
12−14
−350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+268%
|
28
−268%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+367%
|
9
−367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+257%
|
21−24
−257%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+255%
|
75−80
−255%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+306%
|
18
−306%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+265%
|
16−18
−265%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+350%
|
20
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+509%
|
11
−509%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 60−65
+377%
|
13
−377%
|
Full HD
High
| Dota 2 | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Valorant | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
1440p
High
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 8065S and GTX 1050 Ti compete in popular games:
- Radeon 8065S is 186% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 8065S is 183% faster in 1440p
- Radeon 8065S is 188% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 8065S is 554% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 8065S performs better in 55 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 44.39 | 15.28 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 75 Watt |
Radeon 8065S has a 191% higher aggregate performance score, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 36% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 8065S is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 8065S is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
