Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 3GB Mobile vs GTX 980 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Mobile and GeForce GTX 1050 3GB Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 980 Mobile outperforms Nvidia GTX 1050 3GB Mobile by an impressive 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 259 | 402 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.93 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.44 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 21 September 2015 (9 years ago) | April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.82 | 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 | 2048 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 1366 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | 1442 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100-200 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 136.2 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.358 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 128 | no data |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | 4 GB | 3 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 84 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | no data |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| 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.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Multi-Projection | no data | + |
| Multi Monitor | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| 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 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.
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 | 97
+76.4%
| 55−60
−76.4%
|
| 4K | 48
+77.8%
| 27−30
−77.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.08 | no data |
| 4K | 8.25 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+94.3%
|
35−40
−94.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+84%
|
50−55
−84%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+93.3%
|
30−33
−93.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+74%
|
50−55
−74%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+94.3%
|
35−40
−94.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 56
+86.7%
|
30−33
−86.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+75%
|
40−45
−75%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+86.7%
|
60−65
−86.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+84%
|
50−55
−84%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84
+86.7%
|
45−50
−86.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+93.3%
|
30−33
−93.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+77.5%
|
80−85
−77.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+80%
|
45−50
−80%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+74%
|
50−55
−74%
|
| World of Tanks | 240−250
+85.4%
|
130−140
−85.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+94.3%
|
35−40
−94.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+90%
|
40−45
−90%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+75%
|
40−45
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+84%
|
50−55
−84%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+77.5%
|
80−85
−77.5%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+74%
|
50−55
−74%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+82.1%
|
95−100
−82.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| World of Tanks | 140−150
+81.3%
|
80−85
−81.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+83.3%
|
24−27
−83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+100%
|
30−33
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+86.7%
|
30−33
−86.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+81.5%
|
27−30
−81.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Dota 2 | 60
+100%
|
30−33
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+100%
|
30−33
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+85.7%
|
35−40
−85.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+100%
|
30−33
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+76.2%
|
21−24
−76.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16
−85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
This is how GTX 980 Mobile and Nvidia GTX 1050 3GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Mobile is 76% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 Mobile is 78% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.61 | 12.45 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
GTX 980 Mobile has a 73.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 136433.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Nvidia GTX 1050 3GB Mobile, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 3GB Mobile in performance tests.
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.
