Radeon R6 M340DX vs GeForce GTX 1050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 with Radeon R6 M340DX, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1050 outperforms R6 M340DX by a whopping 356% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 397 | 799 |
| Place by popularity | 13 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.14 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.97 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP107 | Jet |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 12 December 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | no data |
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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1290 MHz | 955 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | 1030 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | no data |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 58.20 | 24.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.862 TFLOPS | 0.791 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 24 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.38" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 300 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs |
| 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 44
+340%
| 10
−340%
|
| 1440p | 23
+360%
| 5−6
−360%
|
| 4K | 23
+360%
| 5−6
−360%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.48 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.74 | no data |
| 4K | 4.74 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 56
+522%
|
9−10
−522%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+407%
|
14−16
−407%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+238%
|
12−14
−238%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+138%
|
45−50
−138%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250
+390%
|
50−55
−390%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Dota 2 | 124
+359%
|
27−30
−359%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Fortnite | 53
+279%
|
14−16
−279%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 49
+277%
|
12−14
−277%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 53
+657%
|
7−8
−657%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+238%
|
12−14
−238%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 38
+533%
|
6
−533%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+138%
|
45−50
−138%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+300%
|
9−10
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+315%
|
27−30
−315%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34
+162%
|
12−14
−162%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+238%
|
12−14
−238%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+567%
|
3
−567%
|
| Valorant | 28
−60.7%
|
45−50
+60.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 42
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+360%
|
20−22
−360%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+365%
|
20−22
−365%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+428%
|
24−27
−428%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+371%
|
14−16
−371%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+571%
|
7−8
−571%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
This is how GTX 1050 and R6 M340DX compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 is 340% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 is 360% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 is 360% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1050 is 950% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R6 M340DX is 61% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1050 is ahead in 57 tests (97%)
- R6 M340DX is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.78 | 2.80 |
| Recency | 25 October 2016 | 12 December 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
GTX 1050 has a 356.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R6 M340DX in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 is a desktop card while Radeon R6 M340DX is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
