ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5145 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile and Mobility Radeon HD 5145, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
1050 Ti Mobile outperforms Mobility HD 5145 by a whopping 3539% 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 | 405 | 1328 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.22 | 1.95 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | M92 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 1493 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 242 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 77.76 | 5.760 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.488 TFLOPS | 0.1152 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 48 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 288 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 64 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7 GB/s | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 14.4 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Ansel | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| 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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 56
+5500%
| 1−2
−5500%
|
| 1440p | 25 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 17 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 57
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+3900%
|
2−3
−3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 56
+700%
|
7−8
−700%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 49
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 124
+727%
|
14−16
−727%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+820%
|
10−11
−820%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Fortnite | 76
+3700%
|
2−3
−3700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+1325%
|
4−5
−1325%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 52
+643%
|
7−8
−643%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 42
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
+760%
|
10−11
−760%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 41
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 43
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 54
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+10400%
|
1−2
−10400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 12 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 29 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 26
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 32 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Ti Mobile and ATI Mobility HD 5145 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is 5500% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is 10400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Ti Mobile performs better in 17 tests (61%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (39%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.83 | 0.38 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 7 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
GTX 1050 Ti Mobile has a 3539.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.
ATI Mobility HD 5145, on the other hand, has 400% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5145 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.
