GeForce RTX 5050 vs GTX 1060 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms GTX 1060 Mobile by a whopping 134% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 332 | 102 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 10.09 | 100.00 |
| Power efficiency | 17.12 | 24.60 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | GB207 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 24 June 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $237.11 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 5050 has 891% better value for money than GTX 1060 Mobile.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1280 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1708 MHz | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 133.6 | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.275 TFLOPS | 13.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 320.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | DP 1.43, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| 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 | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | + | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 68
−121%
| 150−160
+121%
|
| 1440p | 45
−122%
| 100−110
+122%
|
| 4K | 30
−133%
| 70−75
+133%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.49
−110%
| 1.66
+110%
|
| 1440p | 5.27
−112%
| 2.49
+112%
|
| 4K | 7.90
−122%
| 3.56
+122%
|
- RTX 5050 has 110% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 5050 has 112% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 5050 has 122% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 137
−119%
|
300−310
+119%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
−130%
|
85−90
+130%
|
| God of War | 53
−126%
|
120−130
+126%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 96
−129%
|
220−230
+129%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110
−127%
|
250−260
+127%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
−133%
|
70−75
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75
−127%
|
170−180
+127%
|
| Fortnite | 177
−126%
|
400−450
+126%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102
−125%
|
230−240
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 69
−132%
|
160−170
+132%
|
| God of War | 43
−133%
|
100−105
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 78
−131%
|
180−190
+131%
|
| Valorant | 136
−121%
|
300−310
+121%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 81
−122%
|
180−190
+122%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 73
−133%
|
170−180
+133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 222
−125%
|
500−550
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
−120%
|
55−60
+120%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−126%
|
240−250
+126%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
−121%
|
150−160
+121%
|
| Fortnite | 105
−129%
|
240−250
+129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 91
−131%
|
210−220
+131%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 61
−130%
|
140−150
+130%
|
| God of War | 34
−121%
|
75−80
+121%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 74
−130%
|
170−180
+130%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40
−125%
|
90−95
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 67
−124%
|
150−160
+124%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 69
−132%
|
160−170
+132%
|
| Valorant | 134
−124%
|
300−310
+124%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 71
−125%
|
160−170
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
−117%
|
50−55
+117%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
−129%
|
270−280
+129%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
−119%
|
140−150
+119%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 71
−125%
|
160−170
+125%
|
| God of War | 24
−129%
|
55−60
+129%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 52
−131%
|
120−130
+131%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
−131%
|
90−95
+131%
|
| Valorant | 72
−122%
|
160−170
+122%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 81
−122%
|
180−190
+122%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−130%
|
85−90
+130%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−126%
|
300−310
+126%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−126%
|
70−75
+126%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
−117%
|
50−55
+117%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
−108%
|
350−400
+108%
|
| Valorant | 133
−126%
|
300−310
+126%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 53
−126%
|
120−130
+126%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 43
−133%
|
100−105
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
−128%
|
130−140
+128%
|
| God of War | 21−24
−114%
|
45−50
+114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−132%
|
65−70
+132%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50
−120%
|
110−120
+120%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−127%
|
75−80
+127%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26
−131%
|
60−65
+131%
|
| Valorant | 117
−131%
|
270−280
+131%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 28
−132%
|
65−70
+132%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−122%
|
140−150
+122%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
−114%
|
45−50
+114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
−129%
|
80−85
+129%
|
| God of War | 14−16
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 23
−117%
|
50−55
+117%
|
This is how GTX 1060 Mobile and RTX 5050 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5050 is 121% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5050 is 122% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5050 is 133% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.96 | 41.94 |
| Recency | 15 August 2016 | 24 June 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 130 Watt |
GTX 1060 Mobile has 62.5% lower power consumption.
RTX 5050, on the other hand, has a 133.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 5050 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.
