Radeon RX 6500 vs GeForce GTX 1050
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 with Radeon RX 6500, including specs and performance data.
RX 6500 outperforms GTX 1050 by an impressive 53% 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 | 278 |
| Place by popularity | 20 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.38 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.03 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | no data |
| GPU code name | GP107 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (8 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1290 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | no data |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 58.20 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.862 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 40 | no data |
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 | no data |
| 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1752 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | no data |
| 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) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 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. 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
−42.9%
| 60−65
+42.9%
|
| 1440p | 21
−42.9%
| 30−35
+42.9%
|
| 4K | 23
−52.2%
| 35−40
+52.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.60 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.19 | no data |
| 4K | 4.74 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Elden Ring | 35−40
−64.1%
|
60−65
+64.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−48.8%
|
60−65
+48.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
−60.4%
|
85−90
+60.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
−46.3%
|
60−65
+46.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−39.4%
|
45−50
+39.4%
|
| Valorant | 39
−108%
|
80−85
+108%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 36
−77.8%
|
60−65
+77.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−52.2%
|
35−40
+52.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 77
+8.5%
|
70−75
−8.5%
|
| Elden Ring | 35−40
−64.1%
|
60−65
+64.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
−19.6%
|
65−70
+19.6%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
−43.2%
|
100−110
+43.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
−143%
|
85−90
+143%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 53
−32.1%
|
70−75
+32.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
−108%
|
50−55
+108%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
−39.2%
|
130−140
+39.2%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9
−411%
|
45−50
+411%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−57.5%
|
60−65
+57.5%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−58.8%
|
80−85
+58.8%
|
| World of Tanks | 250
+7.8%
|
230−240
−7.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 29
−121%
|
60−65
+121%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−52.2%
|
35−40
+52.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+57.7%
|
70−75
−57.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−34%
|
65−70
+34%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
−174%
|
85−90
+174%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
−39.2%
|
130−140
+39.2%
|
| Valorant | 28
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 7
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Elden Ring | 20−22
−65%
|
30−35
+65%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
−48.9%
|
140−150
+48.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| World of Tanks | 90−95
−52.2%
|
140−150
+52.2%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−57.7%
|
40−45
+57.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
−80%
|
50−55
+80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
−189%
|
50−55
+189%
|
| Metro Exodus | 25
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−40.6%
|
45−50
+40.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
−45.8%
|
35−40
+45.8%
|
| Elden Ring | 8−9
−87.5%
|
14−16
+87.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24
−41.7%
|
30−35
+41.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−87.5%
|
14−16
+87.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
−41.7%
|
30−35
+41.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−66.7%
|
20−22
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 47
+38.2%
|
30−35
−38.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−62.5%
|
24−27
+62.5%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Elden Ring | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how GTX 1050 and RX 6500 compete in popular games:
- RX 6500 is 43% faster in 1080p
- RX 6500 is 43% faster in 1440p
- RX 6500 is 52% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1050 is 58% faster.
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6500 is 411% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1050 is ahead in 4 tests (7%)
- RX 6500 is ahead in 40 tests (71%)
- there's a draw in 12 tests (21%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.08 | 20.06 |
RX 6500 has a 53.4% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon RX 6500 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 RX 6500 is a notebook 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.
