GeForce GTX 880M vs 1050 Mobile
Aggregated performance score
1050 Mobile outperforms 880M by 17% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 380 | 417 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 11.71 | 0.94 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GP107B | N15E-GX-A2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (7 years old) | 12 March 2014 (10 years old) |
| Current price | $256 | $1544 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1050 Mobile has 1146% better value for money than GTX 880M.
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 | 640 | 1536 |
| CUDA cores | 640 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1354 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz | 993 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 122 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 59.72 | 127.1 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 3,050 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile and GeForce GTX 880M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | - | + |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4000 MB | 8 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | GDDR5 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | Up to 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |
| 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 | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| LVDS signal support | no data | Up to 1920x1200 |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | 2.2 | no data |
| HDCP content protection | no data | + |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | no data | + |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | no data | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | no data |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics 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 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. 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.
1050 Mobile outperforms 880M by 17% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
1050 Mobile outperforms 880M by 17% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
880M outperforms 1050 Mobile by 6% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
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: 17%
880M outperforms 1050 Mobile by 12% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
880M outperforms 1050 Mobile by 1% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
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: 14%
880M outperforms 1050 Mobile by 5% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
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%
1050 Mobile outperforms 880M by 7% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
880M outperforms 1050 Mobile by 4% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
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
−84.9%
| 135
+84.9%
|
| Full HD | 46
−26.1%
| 58
+26.1%
|
| 1440p | 24
+33.3%
| 18−21
−33.3%
|
| 4K | 15
−53.3%
| 23
+53.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 37
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+50%
|
30−35
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40
+53.8%
|
24−27
−53.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+56%
|
24−27
−56%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 38
+46.2%
|
24−27
−46.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
+57.1%
|
35−40
−57.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+58.8%
|
16−18
−58.8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 33
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 44
+29.4%
|
30−35
−29.4%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 33
+26.9%
|
24−27
−26.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+44%
|
24−27
−44%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 37
+42.3%
|
24−27
−42.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 52
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 29
+38.1%
|
21−24
−38.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+14.7%
|
34
−14.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+8.8%
|
30−35
−8.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+32%
|
24−27
−32%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 33
+26.9%
|
24−27
−26.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+5.7%
|
35−40
−5.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+15.8%
|
19
−15.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 17
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 13
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+52.9%
|
16−18
−52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+31.3%
|
16−18
−31.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 13
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 11
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Mobile and GTX 880M compete in popular games:
- GTX 880M is 84.9% faster than GTX 1050 Mobile in 900p
- GTX 880M is 26.1% faster than GTX 1050 Mobile in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 33.3% faster than GTX 880M in 1440p
- GTX 880M is 53.3% faster than GTX 1050 Mobile in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1050 Mobile is 133% faster than the GTX 880M.
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 880M is 21.4% faster than the GTX 1050 Mobile.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Mobile is ahead in 40 tests (93%)
- GTX 880M is ahead in 2 tests (5%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 11.52 | 9.84 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 12 March 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4000 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 122 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 880M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
