GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs 1650 SUPER

Place in performance ranking	190	360
Place by popularity	51	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	27.05	1.34
Architecture	Turing (2018−2021)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	TU116	GP107
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	29 October 2019 (4 years ago)	21 May 2018 (6 years ago)
Current price	$206	$1118

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 1650 SUPER has 1919% better value for money than GTX 1050 3 GB.

Detailed specifications

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	1280	768
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	1392 MHz
Boost clock speed	1725 MHz	1518 MHz
Number of transistors	6,600 million	3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	138.0	72.86

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	229 mm	145 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	None

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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	3 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	7008 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 GB/s	84.1 GB/s
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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Ready	+	no data
Multi Monitor	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.5	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	7.5	6.1

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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 26.29
+98.1%

GTX 1050 3 GB 13.27

1650 SUPER outperforms 1050 3 GB by 98% based on our aggregate 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%

GTX 1650 SUPER 10155
+98.1%

GTX 1050 3 GB 5125

1650 SUPER outperforms 1050 3 GB by 98% in Passmark.

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	69 +130%	30−35 −130%
1440p	34 +113%	16−18 −113%
4K	21 +110%	10−12 −110%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

120−130

+90.5%

63
−90.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	95−100 +90%	50−55 −90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	100−105 +88.7%	53 −88.7%
Battlefield 5	170−180 +97.7%	85−90 −97.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	100−105 +85.2%	50−55 −85.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	95−100 +90%	50 −90%
Far Cry 5	110−120 +83.3%	60−65 −83.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	130−140 +91.2%	65−70 −91.2%
Forza Horizon 4	220−230 +94.7%	110−120 −94.7%
Hitman 3	120−130 +93.5%	62 −93.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	300−310 +91.1%	157 −91.1%
Metro Exodus	130−140 +88.4%	69 −88.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	160−170 +90.5%	84 −90.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	230−240 +90.1%	121 −90.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	140−150 +97.2%	71 −97.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	95−100 +90%	50−55 −90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	50−55 +92.3%	26 −92.3%
Battlefield 5	170−180 +97.7%	85−90 −97.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	100−105 +85.2%	50−55 −85.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	75−80 +87.5%	40 −87.5%
Far Cry 5	110−120 +83.3%	60−65 −83.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	130−140 +91.2%	65−70 −91.2%
Forza Horizon 4	220−230 +94.7%	110−120 −94.7%
Hitman 3	110−120 +86.4%	59 −86.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	200−210 +92.3%	100−110 −92.3%
Metro Exodus	160−170 +95.1%	82 −95.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	140−150 +89.2%	74 −89.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	200−210 +98%	101 −98%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	170−180 +88.9%	90 −88.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	350−400 +94.4%	180 −94.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	95−100 +90%	50−55 −90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27−30 +80%	15 −80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	100−105 +85.2%	50−55 −85.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	65−70 +91.2%	34 −91.2%
Far Cry 5	110−120 +83.3%	60−65 −83.3%
Forza Horizon 4	220−230 +94.7%	110−120 −94.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	160−170 +92.8%	83 −92.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	160−170 +92.8%	83 −92.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	95−100 +90%	50 −90%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +90.5%	21 −90.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

130−140

+97%

66
−97%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	95−100 +90%	50−55 −90%
Far Cry New Dawn	120−130 +96.7%	61 −96.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60 +96.4%	27−30 −96.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +84.6%	13 −84.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	70−75 +94.4%	35−40 −94.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +75%	20 −75%
Far Cry 5	100−105 +85.2%	54 −85.2%
Forza Horizon 4	100−105 +92.3%	50−55 −92.3%
Hitman 3	65−70 +91.2%	34 −91.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +83.3%	60 −83.3%
Metro Exodus	100−105 +81.8%	55 −81.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 +83.3%	60 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	65−70 +97%	30−35 −97%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +92.9%	14 −92.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

85−90
+93.2%

−93.2%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +92.3%	24−27 −92.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45 +90.5%	21−24 −90.5%
Hitman 3	65−70 +91.2%	34 −91.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +93.5%	30−35 −93.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +84.2%	19 −84.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +87.5%	32 −87.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 +87.5%	16−18 −87.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	9−10 +80%	5 −80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +80%	14−16 −80%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +80%	14−16 −80%
Forza Horizon 4	70−75 +94.4%	35−40 −94.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 +97%	33 −97%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +96.4%	28 −96.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +75%	8 −75%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45
+90.5%

−90.5%

This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and GTX 1050 3 GB compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 SUPER is 130% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 SUPER is 113% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 SUPER is 110% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	26.29	13.27
Recency	29 October 2019	21 May 2018
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	3 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	75 Watt