Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce GTX 1050 vs 590
Aggregated performance score
GTX 590
2011
3072MB (1536MB per GPU) GDDR5
8.63
GTX 1050
2016
2048 MB GDDR5
13.04
+51.1%
1050 outperforms 590 by 51% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 461 | 358 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 18 |
| Value for money | 0.46 | 4.09 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | N17P-G1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 24 March 2011 (13 years old) | 25 October 2016 (7 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $109 |
| Current price | $600 (0.9x MSRP) | $211 (1.9x MSRP) |
Value for money
GTX 1050 has 789% better value for money than GTX 590.
Technical specs
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 | 1024 | 640 |
| CUDA cores | 1024 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 1290 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1392 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 77.7 billion/sec | 58.20 |
| Floating-point performance | 2x 1,244.2 gflops | 1,862 gflops |
Size and 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 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 11" (280 mm) (27.9 cm) | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | 4.38" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | no data | 300 Watt |
| Supplementary power connectors | Two 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
| SLI | no data | - |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1707 MHz | 7008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 327.7 GB/s | 112 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | no data | 2.2 |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | no data | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | no data | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 3.0 |
| VR Ready | no data | + |
| Ansel | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | + |
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.
1050 outperforms 590 by 51% based on our aggregated 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%
1050 outperforms 590 by 51% in Passmark.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
1050 outperforms 590 by 26% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
590 outperforms 1050 by 7% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
1050 outperforms 590 by 2% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
1050 outperforms 590 by 40% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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:
| 900p | 47
−48.9%
| 70−75
+48.9%
|
| Full HD | 109
+142%
| 45
−142%
|
| 1200p | 112
−42.9%
| 160−170
+42.9%
|
| 1440p | 14−16
−71.4%
| 24
+71.4%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−57.1%
| 22
+57.1%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−53.8%
|
20−22
+53.8%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
−111%
|
38
+111%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−93.1%
|
56
+93.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
−41.7%
|
34
+41.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−53.8%
|
20−22
+53.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−61.9%
|
30−35
+61.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
−86.4%
|
41
+86.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−53.3%
|
45−50
+53.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−107%
|
31
+107%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
−42.1%
|
27
+42.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
−44.4%
|
26
+44.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−48.3%
|
43
+48.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 24−27
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−53.8%
|
20−22
+53.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−61.9%
|
30−35
+61.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
−72.7%
|
38
+72.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−63.3%
|
49
+63.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35−40
+59.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−30.8%
|
17
+30.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9
−66.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24
+26.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−111%
|
38
+111%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
+20%
|
15
−20%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
−75%
|
21−24
+75%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−24.1%
|
36
+24.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−53.8%
|
20−22
+53.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−61.9%
|
30−35
+61.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
−59.1%
|
35
+59.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−13.3%
|
34
+13.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20
+11.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−46.2%
|
18−20
+46.2%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−35.7%
|
18−20
+35.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−41.7%
|
16−18
+41.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−108%
|
27
+108%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 12−14
−92.3%
|
25
+92.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−66.7%
|
24−27
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−150%
|
15
+150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−117%
|
12−14
+117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
−10%
|
11
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−80%
|
18−20
+80%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
This is how GTX 590 and GTX 1050 compete in popular games:
900p resolution:
- GTX 1050 is 48.9% faster than GTX 590
1080p resolution:
- GTX 590 is 142% faster than GTX 1050
1200p resolution:
- GTX 1050 is 42.9% faster than GTX 590
1440p resolution:
- GTX 1050 is 71.4% faster than GTX 590
4K resolution:
- GTX 1050 is 57.1% faster than GTX 590
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 590 is 66.7% faster than the GTX 1050.
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1050 is 200% faster than the GTX 590.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 590 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
- GTX 1050 is ahead in 65 tests (96%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 8.63 | 13.04 |
| Recency | 24 March 2011 | 25 October 2016 |
| Cost | $699 | $109 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 75 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1050 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 590 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
