GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB Max-Q vs NVS 300
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1313 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.20 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 February 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | 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 | 16 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 520 MHz | 1366 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1442 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.160 | 69.22 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.03936 TFLOPS | 2.215 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 24 |
| TMUs | 8 | 48 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.64 GB/s | 84.1 GB/s |
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 | 1x DMS-59 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 1.2 | 6.1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 8 January 2011 | 1 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 75 Watt |
NVS 300 has 316.7% lower power consumption.
GTX 1050 3 GB Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between NVS 300 and GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB Max-Q. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that NVS 300 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB Max-Q is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
