To get the index we compare the characteristics of video cards and their relative prices.
1050 Ti vs 1650
Price now
305$
Games supported
84%
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
- Core clock speed 1290
- Max video memory 4 GB
- Memory type GDDR5
- Memory clock speed 7 Gbps
- Maximum resolution
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
- Core clock speed
- Max video memory
- Memory type
- Memory clock speed
- Maximum resolution
Price now
214$
Games supported
85%
General info
Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.
| Place in performance rating | 229 | 185 |
| Value for money | 19.26 | 43.50 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | N17P-G1 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (5 years ago) | 23 April 2019 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $139 | $149 |
| Price now | $305 (2.2x MSRP) | $214 (1.4x MSRP) |
Value for money
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | no data |
| CUDA cores | 768 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1290 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 75 Watt | no data |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 66.82 | 93.24 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,138 gflops | no data |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
Memory
Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 7 GB/s | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
Benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
- Passmark
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- GeekBench 5 OpenCL
- 3DMark Ice Storm GPU
- GeekBench 5 Vulkan
- GeekBench 5 CUDA
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Benchmark coverage: 13%
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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1650. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 326 Mh/s | no data |
| Decred / DCR (Decred) | 1.01 Gh/s | no data |
| Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto) | 12.62 Mh/s | no data |
| Monero / XMR (CryptoNight) | 0.3 kh/s | no data |
| Zcash / ZEC (Equihash) | 156.48 Sol/s | no data |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 51
−37.3%
| 70
+37.3%
|
| 1440p | 31
−25.8%
| 39
+25.8%
|
| 4K | 25
+8.7%
| 23
−8.7%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
24−27
+23.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 48
−10.4%
|
53
+10.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
−124%
|
47
+124%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 63
+3.3%
|
61
−3.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
−262%
|
76
+262%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
24−27
+23.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−224%
|
68
+224%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 48
−37.5%
|
66
+37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 69
−30.4%
|
90
+30.4%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
−262%
|
76
+262%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−162%
|
55
+162%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35
−48.6%
|
52
+48.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 31
−87.1%
|
58
+87.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
−167%
|
56
+167%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40
−17.5%
|
47
+17.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
−66.7%
|
35
+66.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 52
−1.9%
|
53
+1.9%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 39
−48.7%
|
58
+48.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
24−27
+23.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−195%
|
62
+195%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45
−37.8%
|
62
+37.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 64
−29.7%
|
83
+29.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
−195%
|
62
+195%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−95.2%
|
41
+95.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
−34.6%
|
35
+34.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18
−55.6%
|
28
+55.6%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27
−74.1%
|
47
+74.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 49
−51%
|
74
+51%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
−129%
|
48
+129%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24
−4.2%
|
25
+4.2%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+61.5%
|
13
−61.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
24−27
+23.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
−61.1%
|
58
+61.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 41
−39%
|
57
+39%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
−44.4%
|
65
+44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−61.5%
|
42
+61.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24
−50%
|
36
+50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
−76.2%
|
37
+76.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
−23.8%
|
26
+23.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+5%
|
20
−5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+23.5%
|
17
−23.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
−38.1%
|
29
+38.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+16.7%
|
18
−16.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+61.5%
|
13
−61.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 36
−8.3%
|
39
+8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
24−27
+23.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−85.7%
|
39
+85.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 29
−41.4%
|
41
+41.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−119%
|
46
+119%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+50%
|
14
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+5%
|
20
−5%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
+10.5%
|
19
−10.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 21−24
+40%
|
15
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9
−33.3%
|
12
+33.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
24−27
+23.8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21−24
+61.5%
|
13
−61.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−23.8%
|
26
+23.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
+61.5%
|
13
−61.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+320%
|
5
−320%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18
−16.7%
|
21
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
24−27
+23.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+10.5%
|
19
−10.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14
−50%
|
21
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20
−50%
|
30
+50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+163%
|
8
−163%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance rating | 21.26 | 26.33 |
| Novelty | 25 October 2016 | 23 April 2019 |
| Cost | $139 | $149 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 12 nm |
Judging by the results of synthetic and gaming tests, Technical City recommends
since it shows better performance.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Competitors of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GTX 1050 Ti from AMD is Radeon R9 380, which is slower by 1% and lower by 2 positions in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTX 1050 Ti:
Competitors of GeForce GTX 1650 by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GTX 1650 from AMD is Radeon RX 580X, which is nearly equal in speed and is lower by 1 position in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTX 1650:
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
