GeForce GTX 1050 vs Radeon RX Vega M GL
Aggregate performance score
GeForce GTX 1050 outperforms Radeon RX Vega M GL by a substantial 39% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 438 | 362 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 15 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.56 | 3.90 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 22 | N17P-G1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 February 2018 (6 years ago) | 25 October 2016 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $109 |
| Current price | $1307 | $211 (1.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1050 has 52% better value for money than RX Vega M GL.
Detailed specifications
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 | 1280 | 640 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | 1290 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | 1392 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 80.88 | 58.20 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,588 gflops | 1,862 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon RX Vega M GL and GeForce GTX 1050 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.38" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | no data | 300 Watt |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | no data | - |
| SLI | no data | - |
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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz | 7008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 112 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 | No outputs | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | no data | 2.2 |
| G-SYNC support | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | no data | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 3.0 |
| VR Ready | no data | + |
| Ansel | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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.
GeForce GTX 1050 outperforms Radeon RX Vega M GL by 39% 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%
GeForce GTX 1050 outperforms Radeon RX Vega M GL by 39% in Passmark.
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 | 30−35
−56.7%
| 47
+56.7%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
−60%
| 16
+60%
|
| 4K | 16−18
−56.3%
| 25
+56.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
High Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−100%
|
38
+100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20
+5.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−114%
|
15
+114%
|
This is how RX Vega M GL and GTX 1050 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 is 57% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 is 60% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 is 56% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1050 is 114% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1050 surpassed RX Vega M GL in all 3 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.39 | 13.05 |
| Recency | 1 February 2018 | 25 October 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 75 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M GL in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1050 is a desktop 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.
