The GTX 1060 6GB might be the entry-level flagship of the latest Pascal set of graphics cards, but their prices keep them out of the reach of most budget PC gamers. On the other hand, the GTX 1050 Ti is closer to being reasonably affordable at a price tag of $ 169. NVIDIA ’s xx50 cards have always been defined by budget prices with performance that knocks on the door of entry-level graphics cards – especially when overclocked. After taking the time to fully test the Pascal graphics card inside the GTX 1050 Ti, we can say without a doubt that it continues the trend.
The GTX 1050 Ti has 4 GB RAM compared to the GTX 950 's 2 GB video memory. In our synthetic benchmarks, the GTX 1050 Ti blows past the GTX 950 and, amazingly, even the GTX 960 as well.
Unfortunately, gaming performance was not quite as impressive. Even if the GTX 1050 Ti consistently delivers frame rate increases over the GTX 950, the gain is not much to justify an upgrade. Whether it is a justifiable upgrade depends on what graphics card you are upgrading from. Users with a GTX 950 will not see a remarkable increase in frame rates after paying more for this GTX 1050 Ti. Similarly, those holding onto R9 380 's R9 280 graphics cards will not have a reason to jump teams yet.
For 1080p Full HD, we were able to play Valorant at 80 fps to 80 fps and kept frame rates hovering around 80 fps. For 1440p Quad HD, we were able to play Valorant at 66 fps to 66 fps and kept frame rates hovering around 66 fps.
The good news is, with the release of the GTX 980 Ti, the GTX 980 's price is getting more discount. The GTX 980 is much more cheaper than the GTX 780 as it costs $ 549. Compare this to the GTX 780, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti, which came originally at a price of $ 649, $ 699. Meanwhile, the AMD closest equivalent card is the R9 Nano which costs $ 649.
The GTX 980 has 4 GB RAM compared to the GTX 780 's 3 GB video memory. Unfortunately, gaming performance was not quite as impressive. Even if the GTX 980 consistently delivers frame rate increases over the GTX 780, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti, the gain is not much to justify an upgrade.
Whether it is a justifiable upgrade depends on what graphics card you are upgrading from. Users with a GTX 780, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti will not see a remarkable increase in frame rates after paying more for this GTX 980. Similarly, those holding onto R9 Nano 's R9 390 graphics cards will not have a reason to jump teams yet. For 1080p Full HD, we were able to play Final Fantasy XV, Godfall, Call of Duty: Black Ops 4, GreedFall, Death Stranding at 61 fps to 63 fps and kept frame rates hovering around 62 fps.
For 1440p Quad HD, we were able to play Call of Duty Modern Warfare, Forza Horizon 4, Overwatch 2, Strange Brigade, Fallout 76 at 61 fps to 67 fps and kept frame rates hovering around 63 fps. For 2160p 4K, we were able to play Valorant at 100 fps to 100 fps and kept frame rates hovering around 100 fps.
Price now 416$
Games supported 95%
Price now 200$
Games supported 80%
Contents
General info
Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.
Place in performance rating | 134 | 248 |
Place by popularity | no data | 1 |
Value for money | 12.76 | 15.85 |
Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
GPU code name | GM204 | N17P-G1 |
Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Release date | 19 September 2014 (8 years ago) | 25 October 2016 (6 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $139 |
Current price | $416 (0.8x MSRP) | $200 (1.4x MSRP) |
Value for money
To calculate the index we compare the characteristics of graphics cards against their prices.
Technical specs
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 | 2048 | 768 |
CUDA cores | 2048 | 768 |
Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 1290 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | 1392 MHz |
Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 3,300 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
Thermal design power (TDP) | 165 Watt | 75 Watt |
Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
Texture fill rate | 144 billion/sec | 66.82 |
Floating-point performance | 4,981 gflops | 2,138 gflops |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Information on 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).
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | 10.5" (26.7 cm) | 145 mm |
Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pins | None |
SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 7 GB/s |
Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 112 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
HDMI | + | + |
HDCP | + | no data |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
G-SYNC support | + | + |
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
GameStream | + | no data |
GeForce ShadowPlay | + | no data |
GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
GameWorks | + | no data |
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | no data |
Optimus | + | no data |
BatteryBoost | + | no data |
VR Ready | no data | + |
Ansel | no data | + |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
CUDA | + | + |
Benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- GeekBench 5 OpenCL
- 3DMark Ice Storm GPU
- GeekBench 5 Vulkan
- GeekBench 5 CUDA
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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: 26%
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of GeForce GTX 980 and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 579 Mh/s | 326 Mh/s |
Decred / DCR (Decred) | 1.74 Gh/s | 1.01 Gh/s |
Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto) | 20.28 Mh/s | 12.62 Mh/s |
Monero / XMR (CryptoNight) | 0.54 kh/s | 0.3 kh/s |
Zcash / ZEC (Equihash) | 312.12 Sol/s | 156.48 Sol/s |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
Full HD | 94 | 51 |
1440p | 51 | 30 |
4K | 38 | 25 |
Popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 24−27 |
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 69 +43.8% | 48 −43.8% |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50 +88.5% | 24−27 −88.5% |
Battlefield 5 | 109 +73% | 63 −73% |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 75−80 +85.4% | 40−45 −85.4% |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 +84% | 24−27 −84% |
Far Cry 5 | 80 +95.1% | 40−45 −95.1% |
Far Cry New Dawn | 70−75 +47.9% | 48 −47.9% |
Forza Horizon 4 | 90 +30.4% | 69 −30.4% |
Hitman 3 | 85−90 +100% | 40−45 −100% |
Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65 +84.8% | 30−35 −84.8% |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50 +31.4% | 35 −31.4% |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 66 +113% | 31 −113% |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55 +85.7% | 27−30 −85.7% |
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 58 +45% | 40 −45% |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50 +88.5% | 24−27 −88.5% |
Battlefield 5 | 90 +73.1% | 52 −73.1% |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 75−80 +94.9% | 39 −94.9% |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 +84% | 24−27 −84% |
Far Cry 5 | 73 +78% | 40−45 −78% |
Far Cry New Dawn | 70−75 +57.8% | 45 −57.8% |
Forza Horizon 4 | 83 +29.7% | 64 −29.7% |
Hitman 3 | 85−90 +100% | 40−45 −100% |
Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65 +84.8% | 30−35 −84.8% |
Metro Exodus | 45−50 +76.9% | 26 −76.9% |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50 +156% | 18 −156% |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 55 +104% | 27 −104% |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85 +73.5% | 49 −73.5% |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55 +85.7% | 27−30 −85.7% |
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35 +45.8% | 24 −45.8% |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 45−50 +88.5% | 24−27 −88.5% |
Battlefield 5 | 82 +60.8% | 51 −60.8% |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 +84% | 24−27 −84% |
Far Cry 5 | 69 +91.7% | 36 −91.7% |
Far Cry New Dawn | 70−75 +73.2% | 41 −73.2% |
Forza Horizon 4 | 59 +31.1% | 45 −31.1% |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46 +76.9% | 26 −76.9% |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55 +85.7% | 27−30 −85.7% |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 45−50 +87.5% | 24 −87.5% |
Hitman 3 | 50−55 +100% | 24−27 −100% |
Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40 +81% | 21−24 −81% |
Metro Exodus | 27−30 +92.9% | 14−16 −92.9% |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24 +76.9% | 12−14 −76.9% |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 34 +78.9% | 18−20 −78.9% |
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 27 +68.8% | 16−18 −68.8% |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27−30 +123% | 12−14 −123% |
Battlefield 5 | 62 +72.2% | 36 −72.2% |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 +125% | 8−9 −125% |
Far Cry 5 | 48 +92% | 24−27 −92% |
Far Cry New Dawn | 50−55 +82.8% | 29 −82.8% |
Forza Horizon 4 | 48 +50% | 30−35 −50% |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24 +120% | 10−11 −120% |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24 +91.7% | 12−14 −91.7% |
Hitman 3 | 27−30 +75% | 16−18 −75% |
Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22 +66.7% | 12−14 −66.7% |
Metro Exodus | 16−18 +88.9% | 9 −88.9% |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18 +77.8% | 9−10 −77.8% |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 17 +70% | 10−11 −70% |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29 +81.3% | 16−18 −81.3% |
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14 +55.6% | 9−10 −55.6% |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18 +129% | 7−8 −129% |
Battlefield 5 | 32 +77.8% | 18 −77.8% |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 +133% | 3−4 −133% |
Far Cry 5 | 24 +84.6% | 12−14 −84.6% |
Far Cry New Dawn | 27−30 +92.9% | 14 −92.9% |
Forza Horizon 4 | 34 +70% | 20 −70% |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14 +100% | 6−7 −100% |
Advantages and disadvantages
Performance rating | 28.61 | 16.09 |
Recency | 19 September 2014 | 25 October 2016 |
Cost | $549 | $139 |
Memory bus width | 256 | 128 |
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 768 |
Memory bandwidth | 224 | 112 |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
Thermal design power (TDP) | 165 Watt | 75 Watt |
Judging by the results of synthetic and gaming tests, Technical City recommends
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980
since it shows better performance.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Cast your vote
Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.
Competitors of GeForce GTX 980 by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GTX 980 from AMD is Radeon R9 FURY X, which is slower by 10% and lower by 14 positions in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTX 980:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 100
Competitors of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by AMD
We believe that the nearest equivalent to GeForce GTX 1050 Ti from AMD is Radeon R9 380, which is slower by 1% and lower by 1 position in our rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTX 1050 Ti:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 100
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
User rating
Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.
Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 on a scale of 1 to 5:
Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:
Questions and comments
Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.