Radeon PRO W7800 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile with Radeon PRO W7800, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7800 outperforms 1050 Ti Mobile by a whopping 367% 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 | 29 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 13.19 |
| Power efficiency | 14.25 | 19.20 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 13 April 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 4480 |
| Core clock speed | 1493 MHz | 1895 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | 2525 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 57,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 77.76 | 707.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.488 TFLOPS | 45.25 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 128 |
| TMUs | 48 | 280 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 70 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 2.2 MB |
| L1 Cache | 288 KB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 6 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 MB |
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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 280 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7 GB/s | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |
| 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) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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
−364%
| 260−270
+364%
|
| 1440p | 25
−340%
| 110−120
+340%
|
| 4K | 17
−341%
| 75−80
+341%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 9.61 |
| 1440p | no data | 22.72 |
| 4K | no data | 33.32 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 59
−358%
|
270−280
+358%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 57
−356%
|
260−270
+356%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
−347%
|
210−220
+347%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
−338%
|
350−400
+338%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 62
−352%
|
280−290
+352%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 56
−364%
|
260−270
+364%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 49
−349%
|
220−230
+349%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 124
−344%
|
550−600
+344%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
−335%
|
400−450
+335%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45
−367%
|
210−220
+367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
−355%
|
200−210
+355%
|
| Fortnite | 76
−361%
|
350−400
+361%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
−356%
|
260−270
+356%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55
−355%
|
250−260
+355%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
−347%
|
85−90
+347%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 52
−362%
|
240−250
+362%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
−347%
|
210−220
+347%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 42
−352%
|
190−200
+352%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
−365%
|
400−450
+365%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 41
−363%
|
190−200
+363%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
−350%
|
180−190
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 43
−365%
|
200−210
+365%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 39
−362%
|
180−190
+362%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−362%
|
120−130
+362%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 54
−363%
|
250−260
+363%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−329%
|
450−500
+329%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−335%
|
100−105
+335%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
−358%
|
55−60
+358%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 29
−348%
|
130−140
+348%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 26
−362%
|
120−130
+362%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
−362%
|
120−130
+362%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−341%
|
150−160
+341%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 32
−338%
|
140−150
+338%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−362%
|
120−130
+362%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
−341%
|
75−80
+341%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−350%
|
90−95
+350%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−351%
|
230−240
+351%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−358%
|
55−60
+358%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−358%
|
110−120
+358%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−364%
|
65−70
+364%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Ti Mobile and PRO W7800 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7800 is 364% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7800 is 340% faster in 1440p
- PRO W7800 is 341% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.92 | 64.99 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 13 April 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 260 Watt |
GTX 1050 Ti Mobile has 246.7% lower power consumption.
PRO W7800, on the other hand, has a 366.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7800 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
