GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile vs GTX 660 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660 Ti with GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1050 Mobile outperforms GTX 660 Ti by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 418 | 416 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 93 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.20 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.29 | 10.67 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GP107B |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 August 2012 (12 years ago) | 3 January 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $299 | 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 | 1344 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 1354 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | 1493 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 109.8 | 59.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.634 TFLOPS | 1.911 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 40 |
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 | large |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4000 MB |
| Memory bus width | 192-bit GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 7008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 144.2 GB/s | 112 GB/s |
| 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | + |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | 2.2 |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| GameStream | - | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 3.0 |
| Ansel | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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.
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 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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 70−75
−4.3%
| 73
+4.3%
|
| Full HD | 76
+65.2%
| 46
−65.2%
|
| 1440p | 21−24
−14.3%
| 24
+14.3%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−7.1%
| 15
+7.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.93 | no data |
| 1440p | 14.24 | no data |
| 4K | 21.36 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−34.2%
|
51
+34.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−19.6%
|
55
+19.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+3.3%
|
30−33
−3.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+10%
|
40−45
−10%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−15.8%
|
44
+15.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−207%
|
126
+207%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+25%
|
36
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+29.4%
|
51
−29.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−13%
|
52
+13%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−2.4%
|
42
+2.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+63.2%
|
19
−63.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+112%
|
41
−112%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+114%
|
14
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
−11.4%
|
39
+11.4%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+10%
|
40−45
−10%
|
| World of Tanks | 192
+19.3%
|
160−170
−19.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+2.7%
|
37
−2.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−180%
|
115
+180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+36.4%
|
33
−36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+24.3%
|
37
−24.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+200%
|
29
−200%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+10%
|
40−45
−10%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Elden Ring | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 80−85
+2.5%
|
80−85
−2.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−13%
|
26
+13%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21
−23.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+4.8%
|
21−24
−4.8%
|
| Elden Ring | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+13.3%
|
30−33
−13.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−30%
|
13
+30%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−54.5%
|
34
+54.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
11
−27.3%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
This is how GTX 660 Ti and GTX 1050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 4% faster in 900p
- GTX 660 Ti is 65% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 14% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 7% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 660 Ti is 200% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1050 Mobile is 207% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 660 Ti is ahead in 13 tests (32%)
- GTX 1050 Mobile is ahead in 11 tests (27%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (41%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.49 | 11.60 |
| Recency | 16 August 2012 | 3 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4000 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
GTX 1050 Mobile has a 1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 95.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 660 Ti and GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 660 Ti is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 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.
