GeForce GT 720 vs GTX 1050 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile with GeForce GT 720, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1050 Mobile outperforms GT 720 by a whopping 615% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 427 | 971 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 10.55 | 5.82 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GP107B | GK208B |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 29 September 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $49 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1354 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 59.72 | 12.75 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.911 TFLOPS | 0.306 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
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 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.713" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 / GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4000 MB | 1 GB or 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 1.8 GBps or 5.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 14.4 (DDR3) or 40 (GDDR5) |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
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 | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | + | 3 displays |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | 2.2 | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| GameStream | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 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:
| 900p | 73
+630%
| 10−12
−630%
|
| Full HD | 46
+667%
| 6−7
−667%
|
| 1440p | 24
+700%
| 3−4
−700%
|
| 4K | 15
+650%
| 2−3
−650%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 8.17 |
| 1440p | no data | 16.33 |
| 4K | no data | 24.50 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+629%
|
7−8
−629%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
| Fortnite | 132
+633%
|
18−20
−633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
+686%
|
7−8
−686%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 46
+667%
|
6−7
−667%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 44
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+657%
|
21−24
−657%
|
| Dota 2 | 126
+688%
|
16−18
−688%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+620%
|
5−6
−620%
|
| Fortnite | 51
+629%
|
7−8
−629%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 52
+643%
|
7−8
−643%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 42
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41
+720%
|
5−6
−720%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| Dota 2 | 115
+619%
|
16−18
−619%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 39
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+720%
|
10−11
−720%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Dota 2 | 34
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Mobile and GT 720 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 630% faster in 900p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 667% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 700% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 650% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.94 | 1.39 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 29 September 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4000 MB | 1 GB or 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
GTX 1050 Mobile has a 615.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 290.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
GT 720, on the other hand, has 294.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 720 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce GT 720 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.
