Radeon Pro W6600 vs GeForce GTX 1050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600 outperforms GTX 1050 by a whopping 207% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 389 | 106 |
| Place by popularity | 20 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.38 | 72.09 |
| Power efficiency | 12.03 | 27.69 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Pro W6600 has 533% better value for money than GTX 1050.
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 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1290 MHz | 2331 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | 2903 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 58.20 | 325.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.862 TFLOPS | 10.4 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 40 | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 241 mm |
| Height | 4.38" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 300 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI | - | no data |
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 | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 4x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | 2.2 | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| 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. 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
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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 | 42
−186%
| 120−130
+186%
|
| 1440p | 21
−186%
| 60−65
+186%
|
| 4K | 23
−204%
| 70−75
+204%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.60
+108%
| 5.41
−108%
|
| 1440p | 5.19
+108%
| 10.82
−108%
|
| 4K | 4.74
+95.6%
| 9.27
−95.6%
|
- GTX 1050 has 108% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1050 has 108% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1050 has 96% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−188%
|
75−80
+188%
|
| Elden Ring | 35−40
−182%
|
110−120
+182%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−202%
|
130−140
+202%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−188%
|
75−80
+188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
−202%
|
160−170
+202%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
−193%
|
120−130
+193%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−203%
|
100−105
+203%
|
| Valorant | 39
−182%
|
110−120
+182%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 36
−206%
|
110−120
+206%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−204%
|
70−75
+204%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−188%
|
75−80
+188%
|
| Dota 2 | 77
−199%
|
230−240
+199%
|
| Elden Ring | 35−40
−182%
|
110−120
+182%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
−204%
|
170−180
+204%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
−197%
|
220−230
+197%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
−186%
|
100−105
+186%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 53
−202%
|
160−170
+202%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
−188%
|
75−80
+188%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
−199%
|
290−300
+199%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9
−200%
|
27−30
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−200%
|
120−130
+200%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−194%
|
150−160
+194%
|
| World of Tanks | 250
−200%
|
750−800
+200%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 29
−193%
|
85−90
+193%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−204%
|
70−75
+204%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−188%
|
75−80
+188%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
−168%
|
300−310
+168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−200%
|
150−160
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
−206%
|
95−100
+206%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
−199%
|
290−300
+199%
|
| Valorant | 28
−204%
|
85−90
+204%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 7
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Elden Ring | 20−22
−200%
|
60−65
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
−198%
|
280−290
+198%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| World of Tanks | 90−95
−204%
|
280−290
+204%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−188%
|
75−80
+188%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−200%
|
30−33
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−200%
|
90−95
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
−206%
|
55−60
+206%
|
| Metro Exodus | 25
−200%
|
75−80
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−181%
|
45−50
+181%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−197%
|
95−100
+197%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
−192%
|
70−75
+192%
|
| Elden Ring | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24
−192%
|
70−75
+192%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−189%
|
110−120
+189%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
−192%
|
70−75
+192%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−192%
|
35−40
+192%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
−198%
|
140−150
+198%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−181%
|
45−50
+181%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−186%
|
40−45
+186%
|
This is how GTX 1050 and Pro W6600 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6600 is 186% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6600 is 186% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6600 is 204% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.08 | 40.13 |
| Recency | 25 October 2016 | 8 June 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 100 Watt |
GTX 1050 has 33.3% lower power consumption.
Pro W6600, on the other hand, has a 206.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 is a desktop card while Radeon Pro W6600 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
