Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce GTX 1050 vs 670
Aggregated performance score
GTX 670
2012
2 GB GDDR5
13.76
+5.5%
GTX 1050
2016
2048 MB GDDR5
13.04
670 outperforms 1050 by 6% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 348 | 358 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 18 |
| Value for money | 3.41 | 4.09 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | N17P-G1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 May 2012 (11 years old) | 25 October 2016 (7 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $109 |
| Current price | $22 (0.1x MSRP) | $211 (1.9x MSRP) |
Value for money
GTX 1050 has 20% better value for money than GTX 670.
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 | 1344 | 640 |
| CUDA cores | 1344 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 1290 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | 1392 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 102.5 billion/sec | 58.20 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,459.5 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 | PCI Express 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 9.5" (24.1 cm) | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | 4.376" (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 6-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 | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6.0 GB/s | 7008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 GB/s | 112 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | 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 | 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.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | no data |
| 3D Gaming | + | no data |
| 3D Vision | + | no data |
| 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 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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.
670 outperforms 1050 by 6% 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%
670 outperforms 1050 by 6% in Passmark.
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%
670 outperforms 1050 by 3% 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 670 by 9% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
1050 outperforms 670 by 1% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
1050 outperforms 670 by 46% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 45−50
+0%
| 45
+0%
|
| 1440p | 24−27
+0%
| 24
+0%
|
| 4K | 21−24
−4.8%
| 22
+4.8%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 13.76 | 13.04 |
| Recency | 10 May 2012 | 25 October 2016 |
| Cost | $399 | $109 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 75 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 670 and GeForce GTX 1050.
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.
