1050 vs 680

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

GTX 680
14.29
+9.6%

680 outperforms 1050 by 10% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking337357
Place by popularitynot in top-10014
Value for money4.984.17
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGK104N17P-G1
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years old)25 October 2016 (7 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 $109
Current price$156 (0.3x MSRP)$211 (1.9x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 680 has 19% better value for money than GTX 1050.

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 cores1536640
CUDA cores1536640
Core clock speed1006 MHz1290 MHz
Boost clock speed1058 MHz1392 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)195 Watt75 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data97 °C
Texture fill rate128.8 billion/sec58.20
Floating-point performance3,090.4 gflops1,862 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 supportPCI Express 3.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length10.0" (25.4 cm)5.7" (14.5 cm)
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)4.38" (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)no data300 Watt
Supplementary power connectorsTwo 6-pinNone
SLI options+-
SLIno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2048 MB2 GB
Memory bus width256-bit GDDR5128 Bit
Memory clock speed6000 MHz7008 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.2 GB/s112 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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPortDP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI
Multi monitor support4 displays+
HDMI++
HDCP+2.2
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC supportno data+
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Technologies

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

GameStreamno data+
GPU Boostno data3.0
VR Readyno data+
Anselno data+

API support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.24.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
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.

GTX 680 14.29
+9.6%
GTX 1050 13.04

680 outperforms 1050 by 10% in our combined 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 680 5538
+9.6%
GTX 1050 5053

680 outperforms 1050 by 10% 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%

GTX 680 29702
GTX 1050 32463
+9.3%

1050 outperforms 680 by 9% 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%

GTX 680 10217
+19.2%
GTX 1050 8571

680 outperforms 1050 by 19% 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%

GTX 680 7587
+11.6%
GTX 1050 6797

680 outperforms 1050 by 12% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 680 47130
+15.2%
GTX 1050 40922

680 outperforms 1050 by 15% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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%

GTX 680 18429
+10.1%
GTX 1050 16737

680 outperforms 1050 by 10% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

GTX 680 247306
GTX 1050 349683
+41.4%

1050 outperforms 680 by 41% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

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%

GTX 680 17476
+12%
GTX 1050 15599

680 outperforms 1050 by 12% 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%

GTX 680 13248
GTX 1050 16976
+28.1%

1050 outperforms 680 by 28% 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:

900p45
+12.5%
40−45
−12.5%
Full HD76
+68.9%
45
−68.9%
1440p24−27
+0%
24
+0%
4K24
+9.1%
22
−9.1%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+10%
20−22
−10%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
−26.7%
38
+26.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Battlefield 5 45−50
−14.3%
56
+14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+8.8%
34
−8.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+10%
20−22
−10%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+8.8%
30−35
−8.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
−5.1%
41
+5.1%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+8.7%
45−50
−8.7%
Hitman 3 35−40
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−29.2%
31
+29.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+11.1%
27
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
+15.4%
26
−15.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+14%
43
−14%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+54.2%
24
−54.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+10%
20−22
−10%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+8.8%
30−35
−8.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+2.6%
38
−2.6%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+2%
49
−2%
Hitman 3 35−40
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+11.1%
27−30
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+29.4%
17
−29.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+167%
9
−167%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+25%
24
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+10.5%
38
−10.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−33
+100%
15
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+36.1%
36
−36.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+10%
20−22
−10%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+8.8%
30−35
−8.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+11.4%
35
−11.4%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+47.1%
34
−47.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+10%
20
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+12.5%
24−27
−12.5%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+10.5%
18−20
−10.5%
Hitman 3 21−24
+10%
20−22
−10%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+5.3%
18−20
−5.3%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+15.4%
12−14
−15.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Battlefield 5 30−33
+11.1%
27
−11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+4%
25
−4%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+12%
24−27
−12%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Hitman 3 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+6.7%
15
−6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+15.4%
12−14
−15.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+27.3%
11
−27.3%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+11.8%
16−18
−11.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how GTX 680 and GTX 1050 compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

  • GTX 680 is 12.5% faster than GTX 1050

1080p resolution:

  • GTX 680 is 68.9% faster than GTX 1050

1440p resolution:

  • GTX 1050 is 0% faster than GTX 680

4K resolution:

  • GTX 680 is 9.1% faster than GTX 1050

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 680 is 167% faster than the GTX 1050.
  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1050 is 29.2% faster than the GTX 680.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 680 is ahead in 59 tests (87%)
  • GTX 1050 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
  • there's a draw in 5 tests (7%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 14.29 13.04
Recency 22 March 2012 25 October 2016
Cost $499 $109
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 195 Watt 75 Watt

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 680 and GeForce GTX 1050. The differences in performance seem too small.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680
GeForce GTX 680
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050
GeForce GTX 1050

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 551 vote

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 4877 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.