GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs Radeon R9 380X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 380X with GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.
R9 380X outperforms GTX 1050 Max-Q by an impressive 53% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 335 | 436 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.18 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.84 | 9.68 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Antigua | GP107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 19 November 2015 (9 years ago) | 3 January 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | 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 | 640 |
| Compute units | 32 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1190 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 970 MHz | 1328 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 124.2 | 53.12 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.973 TFLOPS | 1.7 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 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 | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | - | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 970 MHz | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 182.4 GB/s | 112.1 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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 | 65−70
+44.4%
| 45
−44.4%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
+48.1%
| 27
−48.1%
|
| 4K | 21−24
+40%
| 15
−40%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.52 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.73 | no data |
| 4K | 10.90 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 127
+0%
|
127
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
This is how R9 380X and GTX 1050 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- R9 380X is 44% faster in 1080p
- R9 380X is 48% faster in 1440p
- R9 380X is 40% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.07 | 10.52 |
| Recency | 19 November 2015 | 3 January 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 75 Watt |
R9 380X has a 52.8% higher aggregate performance score.
GTX 1050 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 153.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 380X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 380X is a desktop card while GeForce GTX 1050 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
