GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile vs Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Vega Frontier Edition with GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Vega Frontier Edition outperforms GTX 1050 Mobile by a whopping 191% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 156 | 412 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 98 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.04 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.76 | 10.67 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GP107B |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | 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 | 4096 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1382 MHz | 1354 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1600 MHz | 1493 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 409.6 | 59.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | 13.11 TFLOPS | 1.911 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 256 | 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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 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 | 16 GB | 4000 MB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 945 MHz | 7008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 483.8 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | - | 2.2 |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | - | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 3.0 |
| Ansel | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.2.131 |
| 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:
| 900p | 210−220
+188%
| 73
−188%
|
| Full HD | 130−140
+183%
| 46
−183%
|
| 1440p | 65−70
+171%
| 24
−171%
|
| 4K | 40−45
+167%
| 15
−167%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.68 | no data |
| 1440p | 15.37 | no data |
| 4K | 24.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
This is how Vega Frontier Edition and GTX 1050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Vega Frontier Edition is 188% faster in 900p
- Vega Frontier Edition is 183% faster in 1080p
- Vega Frontier Edition is 171% faster in 1440p
- Vega Frontier Edition is 167% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 43 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.83 | 11.64 |
| Recency | 27 June 2017 | 3 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4000 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 75 Watt |
Vega Frontier Edition has a 190.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, and a 309.6% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1050 Mobile, on the other hand, has 300% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 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.
