GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Radeon Pro Duo
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Duo with GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, including specs and performance data.
Pro Duo outperforms 1050 Ti by a substantial 33% 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 | 314 | 390 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 9 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.07 | 12.66 |
| Power efficiency | 4.49 | 15.76 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Capsaicin | GP107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 26 April 2016 (10 years ago) | 25 October 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | $139 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1050 Ti has 512% better value for money than Pro Duo.
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 | 4096 ×2 | 768 |
| Compute units | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1291 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1392 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 ×2 | 66.82 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS ×2 | 2.138 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 256 ×2 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 288 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 277 mm | 145 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 3x 8-pin | 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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB ×2 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit ×2 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 7008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s ×2 | 112 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Enduro | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| VR Ready | no data | + |
| Ansel | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 65−70
+32.7%
| 49
−32.7%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
+16.7%
| 30
−16.7%
|
| 4K | 30−35
+15.4%
| 26
−15.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 23.06
−713%
| 2.84
+713%
|
| 1440p | 42.83
−824%
| 4.63
+824%
|
| 4K | 49.97
−835%
| 5.35
+835%
|
- GTX 1050 Ti has 713% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Ti has 824% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Ti has 835% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Valorant | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Palworld | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how Pro Duo and GTX 1050 Ti compete in popular games:
- Pro Duo is 33% faster in 1080p
- Pro Duo is 17% faster in 1440p
- Pro Duo is 15% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.31 | 15.28 |
| Recency | 26 April 2016 | 25 October 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 75 Watt |
Pro Duo has a 33% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1050 Ti, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 367% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Duo is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Duo is a workstation 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.
