Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050: What is the difference?
36points
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
40points
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Comparison winner
vs
54 facts in comparison
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Why is Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950 better than Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050?
- 0.15 TFLOPS higher floating-point performance?
1.89 TFLOPSvs1.73 TFLOPS - 2.87 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
39.3 GPixel/svs36.43 GPixel/s - Supports multi-display technology?
- 8 more render output units (ROPs)?
32vs24 - 1 more DVI outputs?
2vs1 - 4 more displays supported?
4vs0
Why is Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 better than Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950?
- 366MHz faster GPU clock speed?
1392MHzvs1026MHz - 15W lower TDP?
75Wvs90W - 99MHz faster memory clock speed?
1752MHzvs1653MHz - 396MHz higher effective memory clock speed?
7008MHzvs6612MHz - 13. 92 GTexels/s higher texture rate?
72.86 GTexels/svs58.94 GTexels/s - 6.3GB/s more memory bandwidth?
112.1GB/svs105.8GB/s - 328MHz faster GPU turbo speed?
1518MHzvs1190MHz - 360million more transistors?
3300 millionvs2940 million
Which are the most popular comparisons?
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
AMD Radeon RX 550
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
AMD Radeon RX 550
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 650 Ti
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
Nvidia GeForce MX110
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
AMD Radeon Vega 8
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
AMD Radeon RX 560
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce MX350 Laptop
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
Nvidia GeForce MX150
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce MX330
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 Super Gaming X
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce MX150
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 960
Price comparison
User reviews
Overall Rating
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
1 User reviews
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
8. 0/10
1 User reviews
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
2 User reviews
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
6.0/10
2 User reviews
Features
Value for money
8.0/10
1 votes
6.5/10
2 votes
Gaming
7.0/10
1 votes
6.0/10
2 votes
Performance
8.0/10
1 votes
6.0/10
2 votes
Fan noise
10.0/10
1 votes
10.0/10
2 votes
Reliability
10.0/10
1 votes
6.0/10
2 votes
Performance
1.GPU clock speed
1026MHz
1392MHz
The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.
2.GPU turbo
1190MHz
1518MHz
When the GPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
3. pixel rate
39.3 GPixel/s
36.43 GPixel/s
The number of pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.
4.floating-point performance
1.89 TFLOPS
1.73 TFLOPS
Floating-point performance is a measurement of the raw processing power of the GPU.
5.texture rate
58.94 GTexels/s
72.86 GTexels/s
The number of textured pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.
6.GPU memory speed
1653MHz
1752MHz
The memory clock speed is one aspect that determines the memory bandwidth.
7.shading units
Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors within the graphics card that are responsible for processing different aspects of the image.
8.texture mapping units (TMUs)
TMUs take textures and map them to the geometry of a 3D scene. More TMUs will typically mean that texture information is processed faster.
9.render output units (ROPs)
The ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, writing the final pixel data to memory and carrying out other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the look of graphics.
Memory
1.effective memory speed
6612MHz
7008MHz
The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and data rate of the memory. Higher clock speeds can give increased performance in games and other apps.
2.maximum memory bandwidth
105.8GB/s
112.1GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
3.VRAM
VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of a graphics card. More VRAM generally allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.
4.memory bus width
128bit
128bit
A wider bus width means that it can carry more data per cycle. It is an important factor of memory performance, and therefore the general performance of the graphics card.
5.version of GDDR memory
Newer versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher transfer rates that give increased performance.
6.Supports ECC memory
✖Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
Features
1.DirectX version
DirectX is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.
2.OpenGL version
OpenGL is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.
3.OpenCL version
Some apps use OpenCL to apply the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.
4.Supports multi-display technology
✔Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
The graphics card supports multi-display technology. This allows you to configure multiple monitors in order to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as having a wider field of view.
5.load GPU temperature
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950)
A lower load temperature means that the card produces less heat and its cooling system performs better.
6.supports ray tracing
✖Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows, and reflections in games.
7.Supports 3D
✔Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D display and glasses).
8.supports DLSS
✖Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an upscaling technology powered by AI. It allows the graphics card to render games at a lower resolution and upscale them to a higher resolution with near-native visual quality and increased performance. DLSS is only available on select games.
9.PassMark (G3D) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050)
This benchmark measures the graphics performance of a video card. Source: PassMark.
Ports
1.has an HDMI output
✔Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Devices with a HDMI or mini HDMI port can transfer high definition video and audio to a display.
2.HDMI ports
More HDMI ports mean that you can simultaneously connect numerous devices, such as video game consoles and set-top boxes.
3.HDMI version
HDMI 2.0
HDMI 2.0
Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, which allows for higher resolutions and frame rates.
4.DisplayPort outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using DisplayPort.
5.DVI outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using DVI.
6.mini DisplayPort outputs
Allows you to connect to a display using mini-DisplayPort.
Price comparison
Cancel
Which are the best graphics cards?
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs GeForce GTX 950 Graphics cards Comparison
When choosing between GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950, it is worth examining the specifications of the models in detail. Do they meet the recommended requirements of modern games and software? Storage capacity, form factor, TDP, available ports, warranty and manufacturer support are all important. For example, the size of a PC case can limit the maximum thickness and length of the card. Often, instead of the factory overclocked card and RGB backlight, it is better to choose a reference model with a more efficient GPU. And make sure that your current power supply unit has the correct connection pins (using adapters is not recommended). This GPUs compare tool is meant to help you to choose the best graphics card for your build. Let’s find out the difference between GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950.
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
Check Price
GeForce GTX 950
Check Price
Main Specs
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | GeForce GTX 950 | |
Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 90 Watt |
Interface | PCIe 3. 0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pins |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
Recommended system power (PSU) | 350 Watt | |
Check Price |
Check Price |
- GeForce GTX 950 has 20% more power consumption, than GeForce GTX 1050 Ti.
- Both video cards are using PCIe 3.0 x16 interface connection to a motherboard.
- GeForce GTX 1050 Ti has 2 GB more memory, than GeForce GTX 950.
- Both cards are used in Desktops.
- GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is build with Pascal architecture, and GeForce GTX 950 — with Maxwell.
- Core clock speed of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is 267 MHz higher, than GeForce GTX 950.
- GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is manufactured by 16 nm process technology, and GeForce GTX 950 — by 28 nm process technology.
- GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is 138 mm longer, than GeForce GTX 950.
- Memory clock speed of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is 7002 MHz higher, than GeForce GTX 950.
Game benchmarks
Assassin’s Creed OdysseyBattlefield 5Call of Duty: WarzoneCounter-Strike: Global OffensiveCyberpunk 2077Dota 2Far Cry 5FortniteForza Horizon 4Grand Theft Auto VMetro ExodusMinecraftPLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDSRed Dead Redemption 2The Witcher 3: Wild HuntWorld of Tanks | ||
high / 1080p | 35−40 | 35−40 |
ultra / 1080p | 21−24 | 21−24 |
QHD / 1440p | 16−18 | 16−18 |
4K / 2160p | 10−11 | 10−11 |
low / 720p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
medium / 1080p | 40−45 | 40−45 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey. | ||
high / 1080p | 55−60 | 55−60 |
ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
QHD / 1440p | 35−40 | 35−40 |
4K / 2160p | 18−20 | 18−20 |
low / 720p | 100−110 | 100−110 |
medium / 1080p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Battlefield 5. | ||
low / 768p | 50−55 | 50−55 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone. | ||
low / 768p | 250−260 | 250−260 |
medium / 768p | 220−230 | 220−230 |
ultra / 1080p | 180−190 | 180−190 |
QHD / 1440p | 110−120 | 110−120 |
4K / 2160p | 70−75 | 70−75 |
high / 768p | 210−220 | 210−220 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. | ||
low / 768p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
medium / 1080p | 55−60 | 55−60 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Cyberpunk 2077. | ||
low / 768p | 120−130 | 120−130 |
medium / 768p | 110−120 | 110−120 |
ultra / 1080p | 100−110 | 100−110 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Dota 2. | ||
high / 1080p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
ultra / 1080p | 40−45 | 40−45 |
QHD / 1440p | 27−30 | 27−30 |
4K / 2160p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
low / 720p | 80−85 | 80−85 |
medium / 1080p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Far Cry 5. | ||
high / 1080p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
QHD / 1440p | 27−30 | 27−30 |
4K / 2160p | 27−30 | 27−30 |
low / 720p | 180−190 | 180−190 |
medium / 1080p | 110−120 | 110−120 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Fortnite. | ||
high / 1080p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
ultra / 1080p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
QHD / 1440p | 30−35 | 30−35 |
4K / 2160p | 24−27 | 24−27 |
low / 720p | 100−110 | 100−110 |
medium / 1080p | 65−70 | 65−70 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Forza Horizon 4. | ||
low / 768p | 140−150 | 140−150 |
medium / 768p | 120−130 | 120−130 |
high / 1080p | 70−75 | 70−75 |
ultra / 1080p | 30−35 | 30−35 |
QHD / 1440p | 21−24 | 21−24 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Grand Theft Auto V. | ||
high / 1080p | 24−27 | 24−27 |
ultra / 1080p | 20−22 | 20−22 |
QHD / 1440p | 16−18 | 16−18 |
4K / 2160p | 8−9 | 8−9 |
low / 720p | 65−70 | 65−70 |
medium / 1080p | 30−35 | 30−35 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Metro Exodus. | ||
low / 768p | 130−140 | 130−140 |
medium / 1080p | 120−130 | 120−130 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Minecraft. | ||
ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 14−16 |
low / 720p | 100−110 | 100−110 |
medium / 1080p | 18−20 | 18−20 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS. | ||
high / 1080p | 24−27 | 24−27 |
ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 16−18 |
QHD / 1440p | 10−11 | 10−11 |
4K / 2160p | 7−8 | 7−8 |
low / 720p | 65−70 | 65−70 |
medium / 1080p | 35−40 | 35−40 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in Red Dead Redemption 2. | ||
low / 768p | 130−140 | 130−140 |
medium / 768p | 85−90 | 85−90 |
high / 1080p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
ultra / 1080p | 24−27 | 24−27 |
4K / 2160p | 16−18 | 16−18 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. | ||
low / 768p | 90−95 | 90−95 |
medium / 768p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
ultra / 1080p | 50−55 | 50−55 |
high / 768p | 60−65 | 60−65 |
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 have the same average FPS in World of Tanks. |
Full Specs
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | GeForce GTX 950 | |
Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |
Code name | N17P-G1 | GM206 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Release date | 25 October 2016 | 20 August 2015 |
Pipelines | 768 | 768 |
Core clock speed | 1291 MHz | 1024 MHz |
Boost Clock | 1392 MHz | 1188 MHz |
Transistor count | 3,300 million | 2,940 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
Texture fill rate | 66. 82 | 49.2 billion/sec |
Floating-point performance | 2,138 gflops | 1,825 gflops |
Length | 145 mm | 7.938″ (20.2 cm) |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 6.6 GB/s |
Memory bandwidth | 112 GB/s | 105.6 GB/s |
Shared memory | — | — |
G-SYNC support | + | + |
VR Ready | + | |
DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1. 2 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
CUDA | + | + |
Monero / XMR (CryptoNight) | 0.3 kh/s | |
CUDA cores | 768 | 768 |
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
Height | 4.376″ (11.1 cm) | |
SLI options | + | |
Multi monitor support | 4 displays | |
HDCP | + | |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048×1536 | |
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 326 Mh/s | 233 Mh/s |
Decred / DCR (Decred) | 1. 01 Gh/s | |
Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto) | 12.62 Mh/s | 9.97 Mh/s |
Zcash / ZEC (Equihash) | 156.48 Sol/s | |
GameStream | + | |
GeForce ShadowPlay | + | |
GPU Boost | 2.0 | |
GameWorks | + | |
Check Price |
Check Price |
Similar compares
- GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Quadro T1000
- GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Quadro T2000 Max Q
- GeForce GTX 950 vs Quadro T1000
- GeForce GTX 950 vs Quadro T2000 Max Q
- GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Radeon RX 560X mobile
- GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Tiger Lake U Xe Graphics G7
- GeForce GTX 950 vs Radeon RX 560X mobile
- GeForce GTX 950 vs Tiger Lake U Xe Graphics G7
GeForce GTX 1050 vs GeForce GTX 950
- Home
- VGA Benchmarks
- GeForce GTX 1050 vs GeForce GTX 950
-
GeForce GTX 1050
119%
-
GeForce GTX 950
100%
Relative performance
Reasons to consider GeForce GTX 1050 |
19% higher gaming performance. |
This is a much newer product, it might have better long term support. |
Supports PhysX |
Supports G-Sync |
Supports ShadowPlay (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty) |
Supports Direct3D 12 Async Compute |
Based on an outdated architecture (Nvidia Pascal), there may be no performance optimizations for current games and applications |
Reasons to consider GeForce GTX 950 |
Supports PhysX |
Supports G-Sync |
Supports ShadowPlay (allows game streaming/recording with minimum performance penalty) |
Based on an outdated architecture (Nvidia Maxwell), there may be no performance optimizations for current games and applications |
HWBench recommends GeForce GTX 1050
The GeForce GTX 1050 is the better performing card based on the game benchmark suite used (21 combinations of games and resolutions).
Core Configuration
GeForce GTX 1050 | GeForce GTX 950 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
GPU Name | GP107 (GP107-300-A1) | vs | GM206 (GM206-250-A1) | |
Fab Process | 14 nm | vs | 28 nm | |
Die Size | 132 mm² | vs | 228 mm² | |
Transistors | 3,300 million | vs | 2,940 million | |
Shaders | 640 | vs | 768 | |
Compute Units | 5 | vs | 6 | |
Core clock | 1354 MHz | vs | 1024 MHz | |
ROPs | 32 | vs | 32 | |
TMUs | 40 | vs | 48 |
Memory Configuration
GeForce GTX 1050 | GeForce GTX 950 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Memory Type | GDDR5 | vs | GDDR5 | |
Bus Width | 128 bit | vs | 128 bit | |
Memory Speed | 1752 MHz 7008 MHz effective |
vs | 1653 MHz 6612 MHz effective |
|
Memory Size | 2048 Mb | vs | 2048 Mb |
Additional details
GeForce GTX 1050 | GeForce GTX 950 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
TDP | 75 watts | vs | 90 watts | |
Release Date | 25 Oct 2016 | vs | 20 Aug 2015 |
-
GeForce GTX 1050
43. 30 GP/s
-
GeForce GTX 950
32.80 GP/s
GigaPixels — higher is better
-
GeForce GTX 1050
54.20 GT/s
-
GeForce GTX 950
49.20 GT/s
GigaTexels — higher is better
-
GeForce GTX 1050
112.10 GB/s
-
GeForce GTX 950
105.80 GB/s
GB/s — higher is better
-
GeForce GTX 1050
1733.10 GFLOPs
-
GeForce GTX 950
1572.90 GFLOPs
GFLOPs — higher is better
DX11, Max Detail, 2xMSAA 16xAF
-
GeForce GTX 1050
55
-
GeForce GTX 950
44
FPS (higher is better)
DX11, Ultra Quality, 4xAA
-
GeForce GTX 1050
26
-
GeForce GTX 950
23
FPS (higher is better)
High Quality Mode, 8 millon samples, 2xMSAA, DirectX 12, Windows 10 x64
-
GeForce GTX 1050
25
-
GeForce GTX 950
14
FPS (higher is better)
OpenGL, Ultra Quality, SMAA 1tx
-
GeForce GTX 1050
31
-
GeForce GTX 950
22
FPS (higher is better)
DX11, Very High Settings
-
GeForce GTX 1050
28
-
GeForce GTX 950
24
FPS (higher is better)
DX11, Max Details, 16:1 AF, 2xMSAA
-
GeForce GTX 1050
39
-
GeForce GTX 950
31
FPS (higher is better)
DX12, Ultra Quality, MSAA, 16x AF
-
GeForce GTX 1050
18
-
GeForce GTX 950
16
FPS (higher is better)
Very High Details, Pure Hair On, FXAA/HBAO+ enabled, 16x AF, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
GeForce GTX 1050
20
-
GeForce GTX 950
19
FPS (higher is better)
DX11,Max Details, 16:1 HQ-AF, +AA
-
GeForce GTX 1050
25
-
GeForce GTX 950
20
FPS (higher is better)
DX11, Max Details, 16:1 AF
-
GeForce GTX 1050
23
-
GeForce GTX 950
24
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, Windows 10 x64
-
GeForce GTX 1050
19
-
GeForce GTX 950
17
FPS (higher is better)
DX11, Ultra Quality, 4xAA
-
GeForce GTX 1050
40
-
GeForce GTX 950
37
FPS (higher is better)
OpenGL, Ultra Quality, SMAA 1tx
-
GeForce GTX 1050
37
-
GeForce GTX 950
30
FPS (higher is better)
DX11, Very High Settings
-
GeForce GTX 1050
44
-
GeForce GTX 950
37
FPS (higher is better)
DX11, Max Details, 16:1 AF, 2xMSAA
-
GeForce GTX 1050
58
-
GeForce GTX 950
45
FPS (higher is better)
DX12, Ultra Quality, MSAA, 16x AF
-
GeForce GTX 1050
24
-
GeForce GTX 950
22
FPS (higher is better)
Very High Details, Pure Hair On, FXAA/HBAO+ enabled, 16x AF, DirectX12, Windows 10 x64
-
GeForce GTX 1050
31
-
GeForce GTX 950
28
FPS (higher is better)
DX11,Max Details, 16:1 HQ-AF, +AA
-
GeForce GTX 1050
33
-
GeForce GTX 950
27
FPS (higher is better)
DX11, Max Details, 16:1 AF
-
GeForce GTX 1050
33
-
GeForce GTX 950
35
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, Windows 10 x64
-
GeForce GTX 1050
28
-
GeForce GTX 950
24
FPS (higher is better)
Ultra Quality, Windows 10 x64
-
GeForce GTX 1050
5
-
GeForce GTX 950
4
FPS (higher is better)
VS | ||
GeForce GTX 1050 | GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB |
VS | ||
GeForce GTX 1050 | GeForce GTX 1050 Ti |
VS | ||
GeForce GTX 950 | Radeon RX 560 |
VS | ||
GeForce GTX 950 | Radeon RX 460 |
VS | ||
Radeon R9 380 | Radeon R9 380 OEM |
VS | ||
Radeon R9 380 OEM | Radeon R9 285 |
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop)
The following benchmarks stem from our benchmarks of review laptops. The performance depends on the used graphics memory, clock rate, processor, system settings, drivers, and operating systems. So the results don’t have to be representative for all laptops with this GPU. For detailed information on the benchmark results, click on the fps number.
For more games that might be playable and a list of all games and graphics cards visit our Gaming List
log 23. 03:25:44
#0 checking url part for id 6461 +0s … 0s
#1 checking url part for id 7583 +0s … 0s
#2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s … 0s
#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Thu, 22 Sep 2022 17:27:05 +0200 +0s … 0s
#4 composed specs +0.048s … 0.049s
#5 did output specs +0s … 0.049s
#6 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s . .. 0.049s
#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.028s … 0.076s
#8 getting avg benchmarks for device 6461 +0.002s … 0.079s
#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.079s
#10 got single benchmarks 6461 +0.006s … 0.085s
#11 getting avg benchmarks for device 7583 +0s … 0.085s
#12 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.085s
#13 got single benchmarks 7583 +0.01s … 0.095s
#14 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s … 0.095s
#15 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.096s
#16 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.096s
#17 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.097s
#18 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.097s
#19 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.097s
#20 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.098s
#21 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.098s
#22 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.098s
#23 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.098s
#24 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.099s
#25 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.099s
#26 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.099s
#27 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.099s
#28 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.1s
#29 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.1s
#30 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.1s
#31 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.101s
#32 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.101s
#33 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.101s
#34 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.101s
#35 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.102s
#36 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.102s
#37 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.103s
#38 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.103s
#39 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.103s
#40 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.103s
#41 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.104s
#42 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.105s
#43 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.105s
#44 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.106s
#45 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.106s
#46 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.106s
#47 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.107s
#48 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.107s
#49 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.107s
#50 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.108s
#51 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.108s
#52 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.108s
#53 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.109s
#54 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.109s
#55 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.109s
#56 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.11s
#57 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.11s
#58 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.11s
#59 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.111s
#60 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.111s
#61 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.112s
#62 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.112s
#63 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.112s
#64 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.112s
#65 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.112s
#66 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 113s
#67 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.113s
#68 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.113s
#69 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.114s
#70 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.114s
#71 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.115s
#72 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.115s
#73 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.115s
#74 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.116s
#75 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.116s
#76 min, max, avg, median took s +0s … 0.117s
#77 before gaming benchmark output +0s … 0.117s
#78 Got 476 rows for game benchmarks. +0.02s … 0.136s
#79 composed SQL query for gamebenchmarks +0s … 0.136s
#80 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#81 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.137s
#82 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#83 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#84 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#85 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#86 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#87 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#88 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#89 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#90 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#91 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#92 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#93 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#94 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#95 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#96 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.137s
#97 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#98 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#99 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#100 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#101 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#102 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#103 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#104 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#105 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#106 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#107 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#108 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#109 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#110 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.137s
#111 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#112 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#113 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#114 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#115 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.137s
#116 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#117 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#118 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#119 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#120 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#121 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#122 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#123 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#124 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.138s
#125 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#126 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#127 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#128 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#129 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#130 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#131 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#132 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#133 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#134 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#135 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#136 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#137 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#138 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.138s
#139 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#140 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#141 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#142 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#143 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#144 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#145 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#146 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#147 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#148 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#149 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#150 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#151 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#152 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.138s
#153 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#154 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#155 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#156 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#157 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#158 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#159 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.138s
#160 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#161 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#162 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#163 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#164 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#165 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#166 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.139s
#167 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#168 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#169 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#170 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#171 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#172 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#173 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#174 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#175 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#176 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#177 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#178 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#179 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#180 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.139s
#181 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#182 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#183 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#184 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#185 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#186 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#187 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#188 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#189 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#190 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#191 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#192 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#193 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#194 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.139s
#195 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#196 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#197 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#198 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#199 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s
#200 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#201 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#202 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#203 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#204 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#205 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#206 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#207 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#208 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.14s
#209 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#210 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#211 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#212 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#213 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#214 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#215 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#216 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#217 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#218 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#219 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#220 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#221 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#222 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#223 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.14s
#224 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#225 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#226 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#227 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#228 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#229 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#230 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#231 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#232 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#233 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#234 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#235 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#236 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#237 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#238 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.14s
#239 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#240 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#241 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#242 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#243 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#244 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#245 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#246 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#247 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#248 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#249 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#250 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#251 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#252 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#253 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.14s
#254 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#255 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.14s
#256 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#257 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#258 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#259 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#260 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#261 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#262 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#263 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#264 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#265 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#266 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#267 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.141s
#268 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#269 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#270 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#271 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#272 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#273 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#274 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#275 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#276 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#277 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#278 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#279 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#280 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#281 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.141s
#282 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#283 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#284 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#285 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#286 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#287 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#288 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#289 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#290 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#291 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#292 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#293 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#294 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#295 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.141s
#296 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#297 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#298 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#299 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#300 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#301 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#302 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#303 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#304 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#305 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#306 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#307 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#308 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#309 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.141s
#310 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#311 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#312 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#313 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#314 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#315 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#316 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#317 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#318 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#319 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#320 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#321 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#322 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#323 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.141s
#324 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#325 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#326 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.141s
#327 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#328 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#329 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#330 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#331 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#332 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#333 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#334 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#335 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#336 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#337 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.142s
#338 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#339 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#340 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#341 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#342 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#343 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#344 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#345 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#346 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#347 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#348 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#349 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#350 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#351 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.142s
#352 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#353 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#354 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#355 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#356 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#357 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#358 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#359 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#360 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#361 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#362 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#363 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#364 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#365 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.142s
#366 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#367 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#368 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#369 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#370 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#371 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#372 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#373 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#374 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#375 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#376 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#377 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#378 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#379 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.142s
#380 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#381 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#382 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#383 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#384 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#385 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#386 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#387 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#388 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#389 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#390 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#391 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#392 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.142s
#393 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.143s
#394 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#395 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#396 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#397 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#398 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#399 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#400 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#401 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#402 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#403 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#404 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#405 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#406 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#407 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.143s
#408 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#409 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#410 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#411 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#412 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#413 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#414 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#415 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#416 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#417 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#418 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#419 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#420 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#421 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.143s
#422 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#423 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#424 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#425 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#426 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#427 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#428 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#429 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#430 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#431 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#432 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#433 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#434 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#435 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.143s
#436 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#437 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#438 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#439 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#440 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#441 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#442 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#443 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#444 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#445 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#446 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.143s
#447 got data and put it in $dataArray +0.002s … 0.146s
#448 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.026s … 0.172s
#449 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.172s
#450 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.172s
#451 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.172s
#452 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.015s … 0.187s
#453 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.187s
#454 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.187s
#455 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.187s
#456 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.188s
#457 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s
#458 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.189s
#459 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s
#460 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s
#461 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s
#462 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.19s
#463 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s
#464 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.191s
#465 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.191s
#466 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.191s
#467 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s
#468 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s
#469 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.192s
#470 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.192s
#471 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.192s
#472 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.192s
#473 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.193s
#474 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.193s
#475 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s
#476 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.193s
#477 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s
#478 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.193s
#479 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s
#480 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.193s
#481 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.193s
#482 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s
#483 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s
#484 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.194s
#485 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s
#486 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s
#487 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.195s
#488 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s
#489 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s
#490 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.195s
#491 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.196s
#492 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.196s
#493 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.196s
#494 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.196s
#495 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.196s
#496 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.197s
#497 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.197s
#498 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.197s
#499 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.197s
#500 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.197s
#501 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.197s
#502 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.197s
#503 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.197s
#504 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.198s
#505 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.198s
#506 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.198s
#507 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.198s
#508 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.198s
#509 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.199s
#510 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.199s
#511 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.2s
#512 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.2s
#513 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.2s
#514 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.2s
#515 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.2s
#516 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.2s
#517 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.201s
#518 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.201s
#519 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.201s
#520 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.202s
#521 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.202s
#522 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.202s
#523 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.203s
#524 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.203s
#525 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.203s
#526 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.204s
#527 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.204s
#528 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.204s
#529 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.205s
#530 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.205s
#531 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.205s
#532 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.205s
#533 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.205s
#534 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.205s
#535 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.205s
#536 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.205s
#537 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.206s
#538 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.206s
#539 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.206s
#540 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.207s
#541 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.207s
#542 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.207s
#543 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.207s
#544 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.207s
#545 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.207s
#546 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.207s
#547 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.207s
#548 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.207s
#549 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.207s
#550 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.207s
#551 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.207s
#552 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.208s
#553 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.209s
#554 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.209s
#555 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.21s
#556 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.211s
#557 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.211s
#558 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.211s
#559 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.213s
#560 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.213s
#561 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.214s
#562 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.214s
#563 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.215s
#564 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.215s
#565 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.215s
#566 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.215s
#567 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.215s
#568 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.215s
#569 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.215s
#570 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s … 0.217s
#571 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.217s
#572 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.217s
#573 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.217s
#574 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.217s
#575 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.217s
#576 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.217s
#577 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.217s
#578 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.217s
#579 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.218s
#580 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.218s
#581 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.219s
#582 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.009s … 0.227s
#583 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.228s
#584 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.004s … 0.232s
#585 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.232s
#586 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.233s
#587 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.233s
#588 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.234s
#589 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.234s
#590 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.235s
#591 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.235s
#592 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.235s
#593 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.235s
#594 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.235s
#595 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.236s
#596 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.237s
#597 benchmarks composed for output. +0s … 0.237s
#598 calculated avg scores. +0s … 0.237s
#599 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.057s … 0.294s
#600 return log +0.003s … 0.297s
GeForce GTX 1650 vs GTX 1050 vs GTX 950 — Graphics — Feature
The entry-level Turing GPU, GeForce GTX 1650, made its bow last month. Priced from £138, we concluded that the rather large snip in architecture between it and the GeForce GTX 1660 hamstrung performance enough to make the card an unattractive buy. The presence of AMD’s rival Radeon RX 570 took further lustre off Nvidia’s baby Turing GPU that, we felt, ought to have been priced at closer to £100 for it to make sense. Most forum readers agreed.
Such commentary is relevant to readers comparing the GTX 1650 to other cards of today, of course, but doesn’t answer the question of how this GPU fits into previous x50 cards from the green team. To that end, we have benchmarked the GTX 1650 against the previous generations represented by the GTX 1050 and GTX 950, released in 2016 and 2015, respectively.
GeForce GTX x50 |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GPU |
GTX 1650 |
GTX 1050 |
GTX 950 |
|||||||||
Launch date |
April 2019 |
October 2016 |
August 2015 |
|||||||||
Codename |
TU117 |
GP107 |
GM206 |
|||||||||
Architecture |
Turing |
Pascal |
Maxwell |
|||||||||
Process (nm) |
12 |
16 |
28 |
|||||||||
Transistors (bn) |
3. 7 |
3.3 |
2.9 |
|||||||||
Die Size (mm²) |
200 |
132 |
227 |
|||||||||
Base Clock (MHz) |
1,485 |
1,354 |
1,024 |
|||||||||
Boost Clock (MHz) |
1,665 |
1,455 |
1,188 |
|||||||||
Shaders |
896 |
640 |
768 |
|||||||||
Peak GFLOPS |
3,020 |
1,862 |
1,825 |
|||||||||
Memory Size |
4GB |
2GB |
2GB |
|||||||||
Memory Bus |
128-bit |
128-bit |
128-bit |
|||||||||
Memory Type |
GDDR5 |
GDDR5 |
GDDR5 |
|||||||||
Memory Clock |
8Gbps |
7Gbps |
6. 61Gbps |
|||||||||
Memory Bandwidth |
128 |
112 |
106 |
|||||||||
ROPs |
32 |
32 |
32 |
|||||||||
Texture Units |
56 |
40 |
48 |
|||||||||
L2 cache (KB) |
1,024 |
1,024 |
1,024 |
|||||||||
Power Connector |
— |
— |
6 |
|||||||||
TDP (watts) |
75 |
75 |
90 |
|||||||||
Launch MSRP |
$149 |
$109 |
$159 |
|||||||||
Analysis
Nvidia’s primary aim with GTX 1650 has been to put as much Turing goodness into a card whose nominal 75W TDP enables usage without the need for an additional 6-pin power connector from the PSU, thus helping simplify cabling in small-form-factor systems and enable the card to be used with older systems running basic power supplies.
The peak GFLOPS are substantially higher than previous generations’, which is a fact that inconveniently disguises the knowledge that the Turing architecture can do more work per clock cycle than either Pascal or Maxwell. Real-world compute, on the latest games, is actually about 2x both the GTX 1050 and 950.
The back-end is more modest, offering little the in way of extra oomph over the other two GPUs. The crucial aspect isn’t that GTX 1650 offers more, which is to be wholly expected, it’s that it arrives 3.5 years later than GTX 1050 and costs 36 per cent extra in dollar terms and around 50 per cent more in pounds. As we have alluded to in previous reviews, it’s the pricing that really hurts GTX 1650.
Anyhow, the GTX 1650 we’re using for this comparison is the Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC 4G. It goes against the grain of the GPU’s intentions because it carries a 6-pin power connector, has a cost-adding RGB-backlit side logo, and at 265mm long, is bigger than most of its competitors.
These extra features push the price up to £160 or so, or about £25 more than bone-stock models. Gigabyte also has cheaper WindForce OC, regular OC, and Mini-ITX variants in its arsenal, costing roughly £5 less per successive iteration.
The plastic backplate is merely decorative and doesn’t make contact with any underlying components. The good news is that the twin 10cm fans switch off at low loads. Gigabyte does also increase the boost speed to 1,815MHz, up from the stock 1,665MHz.
Underneath, the heatsink is simple, with a couple of heatpipes making direct contact with the TU117 core, though Gigabyte refrains from adding any thermal pads between the block and components. Meanwhile, outputs comprise a trio of HDMI and a single DisplayPort.
Back on point, let’s see what this card can do against its direct predecessors.
GTX 950 vs GTX 1050: compare especificações das placas de vídeo da NVIDIA | Placas
Publicidade
Placas de entrada apresentam diferenças consideráveis na ficha técnica, na performance e no preço.
Por Filipe Garrett, para o TechTudo
Modelos de entrada das duas últimas gerações da NVIDIA, as GeForce GTX 950 e 1050 podem ser opções interessantes para quem deseja boa performance gráfica sem gastar muito dinheiro. Com ficha técnica adequada para rodar jogos em Full HD, as placas de vídeo apresentam diferenças consideráveis nas especificações, mesmo que apenas um ano tenha se passado da chegada da 950 para o lançamento da GTX 1050, em outubro de 2016.
No comparativo a seguir, você descobre quais são as vantagens da 1050 e até que ponto compensa comprar a GTX 950 em 2017.
Quer uma placa de vídeo GeForce? Veja modelos mais baratos no Brasil
GTX 1050 tem ficha técnica muito superior — Foto: Viviane Werneck/TechTudo
Especificações
Mais recente, a GTX 1050 tem especificações técnicas superiores às disponíveis entre as 950. Para começar, o processador gráfico da 1050 é mais rápido, registrando velocidades entre 1.354 e 1.455 MHz contra 1.024 e 1.188 MHz da antecessora.
As vantagens da ficha técnica da GTX 1050 continuam quando o assunto é a memória RAM. Nessa placa, são 2 GB de GDDR5 funcionando a uma velocidade de 7 Gb/s (gigabits por segundo), em contraposição aos mesmos 2 GB de RAM a 6,6 Gb/s na 950.
A memória mais rápida da 1050 também é acompanhada por uma banda mais larga na hora de trocar informações com o processador gráfico: são 112 Gb/s contra 105,6 Gb/s. Essa especificação é essencial para determinar a capacidade de uma placa de vídeo, pois não adianta uma GPU ser muito rápida e ter muita memória se a via de comunicação entre esses dois componentes for estreita. Portanto, quanto mais larga essa banda, melhor a performance da placa.
Performance
Geforce 950 carece da tecnologia mais avançada da 1050 e o resultado é performance inferior — Foto: Divulgação/Asus
Como já deve ter ficado claro, a 1050 é superior tecnicamente e é natural que, na prática, ela seja mais rápida que o modelo anterior. Segundo a Nvidia, a GPU da 1050 é até 30% mais rápida do que a encontrada na 950.
Benchmarks independentes mostram que a medida de diferença de performance pode variar um pouco abaixo desse número, dependendo das configurações do sistema em que a placa está montada e das aplicações. No geral, em condições normais, o usuário deve contar com uma vantagem de pelo menos 20% a favor da 1050.
Consumo
Placa GTX 1050 é mais eficiente e consome menos — Foto: Divulgação/Nvidia
Segundo a Nvidia, a Geforce GTX 950 tem TDP de 90 watts, requerendo uma fonte de 300 watts para operar corretamente no sistema. Por essa conta, se você usar uma fonte de potência inferior, é possível que seu sistema apresente instabilidades e travamentos.
A 1050, mais uma vez, tem vantagem: de acordo com a Nvidia, a TDP da placa é de 75 watts, exigindo os mesmos 300 watts de fonte de energia.
Na prática, a TDP de um componente do seu computador mede a quantidade de energia elétrica que a peça dissipa na forma de calor. Em outras palavras, a TDP é a quantidade de eletricidade desperdiçada pela placa durante seu funcionamento sob alta demanda. Por conta disso, quanto menos calor a placa liberar, menos energia ela desperdiça e maior é a sua eficiência energética.
Preço e disponibilidade
Mais antiga e fora de linha, a GTX 950 não é tão presente no mercado atualmente. Em todo caso, o consumidor ainda consegue encontrá-la à venda no Brasil. No entanto, a GTX 1050, lançada em 2016, tem presença muito maior.
Há uma vantagem no valor também: a 1050 pode ser encontrada no país pelo preço na casa dos R$ 600, significativamente inferiores aos R$ 900 praticados nas poucas versões da GTX 950 ainda à venda no Brasil.
Versões
Baixa disponibilidade e preço alto tornam a escolha pela GTX 950 difícil de ser justificada — Foto: Divulgação/Asus
A idade da GTX 950 acaba refletindo também na variedade de versões diferentes disponíveis no mercado nacional. No momento, o consumidor tem quatro opções diferentes de EVGA, PNY, Asus e Galax para escolher. A melhor delas é a edição da EVGA, que vem com bom overclock de fábrica, e sai por R$ 930, em média.
Do lado da 1050, o cenário é ainda mais interessante. Há mais de 10 versões diferentes da placa no momento, todas vendidas a preços inferiores aos praticados nas 950.
Custo-benefício
A Geforce GTX 950 perde em especificações técnicas, performance, variedade, disponibilidade e preço. Por isso, recomendar a compra dessa placa em específico acaba se tornando uma tarefa difícil. Em todo caso, se o consumidor encontrar uma boa oferta que derrube o valor da 950 a patamares inferiores a R$ 600, talvez o modelo possa ser uma boa escolha.
Entretanto, quem não se convence a respeito da GTX 1050, pode considerar as opções da AMD na mesma faixa de preço. Placas como as Radeon RX 460, 560 e 570 têm perfis semelhantes e orbitam no mesmo patamar.
Geforce GTX 950 vs. Geforce GTX 1050
Especificações | Geforce GTX 950 | Geforce GTX 1050 |
Lançamento | Julho de 2015 | Outubro de 2016 |
Preço | A partir de R$ 930 | A partir de R$ 600 |
Clock | 1.024 a 1.188 MHz | 1.534 a 1.445 MHz |
Núcleos CUDA | 768 | 640 |
Memória RAM | 2 GB GDDR5 | 2 GB GDDR5 |
Velocidade da memória | 6,6 Gbps | 7 Gbps |
Interface | 128 bits | 128 bits |
Largura de banda | 105,6 GB/s | 112 GB/s |
TDP | 90 watts | 75 watts |
0026 vs 1. 73 TFLOPS
39.3 GPixel/s vs 36.43 GPixel/s
32 vs 24
2 vs 1
4 vs 0
Why Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 is better than Gigabyte GeForce GTX 9fifty?
- GPU frequency 366MHz higher?
1392MHz vs 1026MHz - 15W below TDP?
75W vs 90W - 99MHz faster memory speed?
1752MHz vs 1653MHz - 396MHz higher effective clock speed?
7008MHz vs 6612MHz - 13.92 GTexels/s higher number of textured pixels?
72.86 GTexels/s vs 58.94 GTexels/s - 6.3GB/s more memory bandwidth?
112.1GB/s vs 105.8GB/s - 328MHz faster GPU turbo speed?
1518MHz vs 1190MHz - 360million more transistors?
3300 million vs 2940 million
Which comparisons are the most popular?
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
AMD Radeon RX 550
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
AMD Radeon RX 550
Gigabyte AMD Radeon RX Vega 8
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
0003
Nvidia GeForce MX110
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
AMD Radeon Vega 8
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Ti
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
AMD Radeon RX 560
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce MX350 GeForce
Gbytea
Laptop50
vs
Nvidia GeForce MX150
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce MX330
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
MSI GeForce GTX 1660 Super Gaming X
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
vs
Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
vs
XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
GeForce 901MX50003
2 reviews of users
Functions
Price and quality ratio
8. 0251 /10
1 VOTES
6.5 /10
2 VOTES
9000
6.0 /10
2 Votes
performance
8.0251 /10
1 Votes
6.0 /10
2 VOTES
003
10.0 /10
1 Votes
10.0 /10
2 Votes
Reliability
10.0 /10
1 VOTES
6.0 /10
9000 2 VOTES 9000 9000 2 VOTES 9000
1.GPU clock speed
1026MHz
1392MHz
The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.
2.Turbo GPU
1190MHz
1518MHz
When the GPU is running below its limits, it may jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.
3.pixel rate
39.3 GPixel/s
36.43 GPixel/s
The number of pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.
4. flops
1.89 TFLOPS
1.73 TFLOPS
FLOPS is a measure of GPU processing power.
5. texture size
58.94 GTexels/s
72.86 GTexels/s
Number of textured pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.
6.GPU memory speed
1653MHz
1752MHz
Memory speed is one aspect that determines memory bandwidth.
7.shading patterns
Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors in a video card that are responsible for processing various aspects of an image.
8.textured units (TMUs)
TMUs accept textured units and bind them to the geometric layout of the 3D scene. More TMUs generally means texture information is processed faster.
9 ROPs
ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, such as writing the final pixel data to memory and for performing other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the appearance of graphics.
Memory
1.memory effective speed
6612MHz
7008MHz
The effective memory clock frequency is calculated from the memory size and data transfer rate. A higher clock speed can give better performance in games and other applications.
2.max memory bandwidth
105.8GB/s
112.1GB/s
This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.
3.VRAM
VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of the graphics card. More VRAM usually allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.
4. memory bus width
128bit
128bit
Wider memory bus means it can carry more data per cycle. This is an important factor in memory performance, and therefore the overall performance of the graphics card.
5. versions of GDDR memory
Later versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher data transfer rates, which improve performance.
6. Supports memory debug code
✖Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Memory debug code can detect and fix data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.
Functions
1.DirectX version
DirectX is used in games with a new version that supports better graphics.
2nd version of OpenGL
The newer version of OpenGL, the better graphics quality in games.
OpenCL version 3.
Some applications use OpenCL to use the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions are more functional and better quality.
4. Supports multi-monitor technology
✔Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
The video card has the ability to connect multiple screens. This allows you to set up multiple monitors at the same time to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as a wider field of view.
5. GPU temperature at boot
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950)
Lower boot temperature means the card generates less heat and the cooling system works better.
6.supports ray tracing
✖Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows and reflections in games.
7. Supports 3D
✔Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D screen and glasses).
8.supports DLSS
✖Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an AI based scaling technology. This allows the graphics card to render games at lower resolutions and upscale them to higher resolutions with near-native visual quality and improved performance. DLSS is only available in some games.
9. PassMark result (G3D)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950)
Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050)
This test measures the graphics performance of a graphics card. Source: Pass Mark.
Ports
1.has HDMI output
✔Gigabyte GeForce GTX 950
✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
Devices with HDMI or mini HDMI ports can stream HD video and audio to the connected display.
2.HDMI connectors
More HDMI connectors allow you to connect multiple devices at the same time, such as game consoles and TVs.
HDMI 3.Version
HDMI 2.0
HDMI 2.0
New HDMI versions support higher bandwidth for higher resolutions and frame rates.
4. DisplayPort outputs
Allows connection to a display using DisplayPort.
5.DVI outputs
Allows connection to a display using DVI.
Mini DisplayPort 6.outs
Allows connection to a display using Mini DisplayPort.
Price match
Cancel
Which graphic cards are better?
Comparison NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti which is better?
General information | |
Price-quality ratio The sum of all the advantages of the device divided by its price. The more%, the better the quality per unit price in comparison with all analogues. |
|
53. 5% | 59.7%
6.2% (11.6%) better than |
Architecture |
|
Maxwell 2.0 | Pascal |
Codename |
|
GM206 | GP107 |
Type |
|
Desktop | Desktop |
Exit price |
|
159 $ | $139
-20 $ (-12.6%) better than |
Number of shaders |
|
768 | 768 |
Core clock |
|
1024MHz | 1291 MHz
At 267 MHz (26.1%) better than |
Boost frequency |
|
1188 MHz | 1392 MHz
At 204 MHz (17.2%) better than |
Number of transistors |
|
2.940 million | 3. 300 million |
Process |
|
28 nm | 14 nm
-14 nm (-50%) better than |
Interface |
|
PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Power Demand (TDP) Calculated thermal power shows the average heat dissipation in load operation, |
|
90W | 75 W
-15 W (-16.7%) better than |
Length |
|
20.2 cm | 145 mm |
Additional power connectors |
|
1x 6-pin | no |
G-SYNC support NVIDIA G-SYNC technology delivers a smooth gaming experience with variable refresh rates and the elimination of visual artifacts. |
|
Multi Monitor |
|
n/a | + |
SLI support |
|
+ | n/a |
3D Vision |
|
+ | + |
GPU Boost |
|
+ | no data |
GeForce Experience |
|
+ | no data |
VR Ready Technology from NVIDIA that gives manufacturers access to Multi res Shading, Context Priority, and GPU Direct virtual reality technologies. |
|
n/a | + |
Vulkan NVIDIA’s Vulkan technology allows developers to gain low-level access to the GPU to optimize graphics commands (better than OpenGL and Direct3D APIs). |
|
n/a | + |
CUDA The CUDA architecture enables applications that are optimized for |
|
Surround |
|
+ | no data |
Adaptive Vertical Sync |
|
+ | no data |
Multi-Projection NVIDIA’s Multi-Projection technology improves graphics card performance when building virtual worlds. Images for the left and right eyes are calculated simultaneously. |
|
n/a | + |
Maximum temperature |
|
n/a | 97 °C |
Recommended Power Supply |
|
350W | no data |
Multi-monitor support |
|
4 | no data |
Ansel |
|
Decred / DCR (Decred) |
|
n/a | 1.01 Gh/s |
Zcash / ZEC (Equihash) |
|
n/a | 1 Sol/s |
Bus |
|
PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
Number of CUDA cores A large number of CUDA cores increase performance in graphics computing, |
|
768 | 768 |
Height |
|
11.1 cm | no data |
HDCP |
|
+ | n/a |
Maximum resolution via VGA |
|
2048×1536 | no data |
Audio input for HDMI |
|
internal | no data |
GameStream |
|
+ | no data |
GeForce ShadowPlay |
|
GameWorks |
|
Video connectors |
|
Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
DirectX |
|
12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
Floating point performance |
|
1. 825 gflops | 2.138 gflops |
Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto) |
|
9.97 Mh/s | 12.62 Mh/s |
Memory | ||
Memory type |
||
GDDR5 | GDDR5 | |
Maximum memory Large video memory allows you to run demanding games with lots of textures, |
||
2 GB | 4 GB
2 GB (100%) better than |
|
Memory bus width The wider the video memory bus, the more data is transferred to the GPU per unit of time and the better performance in demanding games. |
||
128 bit | 128 bit | |
Shared memory |
||
— | — | |
Memory frequency A high memory frequency has a positive effect on the speed of a video card with a large amount of data. |
||
6.6MHz | 7008 MHz
At 7001.4 MHz (106081.8%) better than |
|
Memory bandwidth The higher the data transfer bandwidth, the more effective amount of RAM the PC can use. Benchmark tests NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 TiPower requirements are reasonable and it’s very efficient compared to the competition. As for the GTX 1050 Ti’s maximum load temperature, the cooling does a great job of keeping it cool and in control. With the current 4096 MB of RAM, the GTX 1050 Ti may run out of memory in related gaming skirmishes in more recent games. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650For the most part, the GTX 1650 is still capable of playing modern games, but you’ll have to lower the settings to maintain high frame rates. If it is important to keep graphics quality settings closer to ultra or high, you will have to look for options to upgrade. In price-to-performance ratio, the GTX 1650 is great for taking on the competition in budget mid-range graphics cards. The GTX 1650 power requirements are reasonable and it’s very efficient compared to the competition. As for the GTX 1650’s maximum thermal load, the cooling does an excellent job of keeping it under regulatory control. With current 40 | ||
Die Size | 132 mm² | unknown |
---|---|---|
GPU Name | GP107 | TU117 |
Process Size | 14 nm | 12 nm |
Transistors | 3,300 million | unknown |
Memory
The parameters of the memory installed on the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1650 — type, size, bus, frequency and bandwidth.
GTX 1050Ti |
GTX 1650 |
|
---|---|---|
Bandwidth | 112.1 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
Memory Bus | 128 bit | 128 bit |
Memory Size | 4096 MB | 4 GB |
Memory Type | GDDR5 | 1 RAD0543
|
|
GTX 1050Ti
|
GTX 1650 |
ROPs | 32 | 32 |
SM Count | 6 | 14 |
Shading Units | 768 | 896 |
TMUs | 48 | 56 |
Theoretical capacity
GTX 1650 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FP16 (half) performance | 33. 41 GFLOPS (1:64) | 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FP32 (float) performance | 2,138 GFLOPS | 2.984 TFLOPS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FP64 (double) performance | 66.82 GFLOPS (1:32) | 93.24 GFLOPS (1:32) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pixel Rate | 44.54 GPixel/s 950 won’t see a noticeable framerate increase after paying more for this GTX 1050Ti. Likewise, those holding R9 380 R9 280 graphics cards won’t have a reason to jump around just yet.
Bottom line NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650Luckily, gaming performance was pretty impressive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 consistently delivers a significant framerate increase over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050Ti and it really justifies the upgrade. For 1080p Full HD, we were able to play Fallout 76, Battlefield V, Call of Duty Modern Warfare, Resident Evil 2, Strange Brigade at 63 fps to 74 fps while maintaining a frame rate of 69around 69 fps. BenchmarksThese are the results of GeForce GTX 1050Ti and GeForce GTX 1650 gaming benchmarks. Best games of 2018 vs. 24 graphics cardsTable of contents
IntroductionThis material opens a new direction of articles — the opposition of the best games of a certain year and video cards. This review is an offshoot of the popular «Pursuit of Performance: Graphics Cards» series. We’ll start by testing twenty-four AMD and Nvidia models in nine games in the first half of 2018. The material contains summary diagrams of the performance of video cards and the geometric average results of accelerators in nine games. This direction of articles is for reference only, there are no comments, since each reader will be able to independently obtain the information he needs. Recall that you can familiarize yourself with the work of test benches, the methodology and processing of test results by clicking on this link. recommendations Test results: performance comparison
Civilization VI: Rise & Fall test
1920×1080Nominal Please enable JavaScript to see graphs Acceleration Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
2560×1440Nominal Please enable JavaScript to see graphs Acceleration Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
3840×2160Nominal Please enable JavaScript to see graphs Acceleration Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Minimum and average FPS Conan Exiles test
youtube.com/embed/S3edQ1qxeRA?rel=0″ frameborder=»0″ allow=»autoplay; encrypted-media» allowfullscreen=»»/>
1920×1080Nominal Please enable JavaScript to see graphs Acceleration Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
2560×1440Nominal Please enable JavaScript to see graphs Acceleration Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
3840×2160Nominal Please enable JavaScript to see graphs Acceleration Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Minimum and average FPS Final Fantasy XV test
youtube.com/embed/yS4vLdtEdjc?rel=0″ frameborder=»0″ allow=»autoplay; encrypted-media» allowfullscreen=»»/>
1920×1080Nominal Please enable JavaScript to see graphs Acceleration Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
2560×1440Rating Please enable JavaScript to see graphs Acceleration Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
3840×2160Nominal Please enable JavaScript to see graphs Acceleration Please enable JavaScript to see graphs
Minimum and average FPS Continuation of material
Discussion of material
Subscribe to our channel in Yandex. Zen or telegram channel @overclockers_news — these are convenient ways to follow new materials on the site. With pictures, extended descriptions and no ads. GTX 1050 Ti VS RX 570 VS RX 580 Test in 18 Games
Hello Artem. Today, as promised, let’s look at the performance of video cards GTX 1050Ti , RX 570 and RX 580 . All cards are 4Gb, and are not of great value in mining, and it is possible to purchase them on the used market, at a more or less sane price. The purpose of the video is to find out what these video cards are capable of today, in the booming cryptocurrency fever. Since earlier some already considered these cards to be obsolete hardware, unsuitable for modern realities. But some circumstances fundamentally disagree with this, and these cards fell almost into the category of the only available gaming video cards. Everything is so out of the ordinary that NVIDIA has again started producing the GP107 chip. The video falls into the comparison category, since all the cards will be shown in one video, although I did not originally plan to do this, I just wanted to show the performance of each one separately. You have supported the format of all maps in one video. In terms of performance, it’s already clear where which card is. I prepared for you 18 game projects and a little, at the end of synthetics. The settings in the games will be the same for all cards, these are mostly high. And as always, the results on the charts are a pure run of the FPS benchmark, without capture and overlay. There may be an error with the video. It is also worth noting that the results obtained in this video are the results, conditionally, in our eco system, based on the XEON E5-2689 processor and 16Gb 1866MHz RAM. For example, with an i9 processor, the results will not be in favor of the E5-2689 base, and vice versa with a processor, for example, i3-6100, not in favor of the latter. I hope this moment is clear. Previously, I have already released videos with these cards, you can take a look and shoot too, and see what has changed in a couple of years, the links will be in the description. Also there you will find our Internet resource, go there a lot of interesting usefulness.
These are the results, I hope the information was useful for you and everyone will be able to determine the alignment of forces in connection with the current situation. On my own behalf, I would add that I categorically do not advise buying these video cards at a price higher than $150. Better now pay attention to the processor, memory, etc. Sooner or later you will need a productive base. Write in the comments what you think about these video cards and the situation in general. Please support with a thumbs up, it is very motivating and this is probably one of the most difficult videos in terms of volume. That’s all for me, Artem was with you. All good. GTX 1050Ti 4Gb #1 RX570 4Gb #1 RX580 4Gb #1 GTX 1050Ti 4Gb #2 RX570 4Gb #2 RX580 4Gb #2 Current offers GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in the game: ASUS EX-GTX1050TI-4G 9 video card review0001NVIDIA today introduced entry-level video cards based on 14nm GP107 chips with Pascal architecture. Models GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1050 will be of interest to gamers who are willing to spend $100-200 to buy a video card. Let’s see what, according to the Californians, the basic game graphics should be at the end of 2016. The first to come to our review was a curious model from the new ASUS EXPEDITION line — ASUS EX-GTX1050TI-4G. Help ZMIST
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1050Having partly satisfied the demand of the most demanding gamers, NVIDIA is ready to expand its new solutions based on Pascal into the most massive segment. Video cards of the initial class are very popular. This is an entrance ticket to the world of big games, therefore it is extremely important for discrete graphics developers to control what may not be the most profitable in terms of profit, but a strategically important section of the graphics front. Some of the potential buyers will upgrade their ancient video card, hoping to get a progressive economical and more efficient solution at a reasonable price. Someone just decided to buy a discrete adapter, until that moment relying solely on integrated graphics. Someone could hardly allocate an amount from the family budget for an entry-level device, and someone, due to personal beliefs, is simply not ready to spend more than $200 on a video card. In all these and numerous similar cases, it is important for manufacturers to “turn a shoulder”, to enter into a position and make an offer that cannot be refused. Ultimately, the manufacturer solves several problems at once. First, make money. Yes, relatively small, but this is a mass market, and therefore the volumes are not comparable with the supply of expensive models. Secondly, this is a great opportunity to increase your own market share, which is important for any company, especially in the face of intense competition between the two main players. Thirdly, this is the most reliable way to get adherents of your products, who, having received a positive experience, will most likely prefer a product from the same manufacturer next time, and perhaps it will be a device of a higher class. Therefore, entry-level video cards are important and none of the developers hide this. course UI/UX Design REGISTER! NVIDIA officially announced new entry-level video cards back on October 18, so we already know the technical characteristics of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1050. Both models use the new 14nm GP107 chip. This is a very compact chip with a die area of only 132 mm², which at the same time contains about 3.3 billion transistors. The new process technology allows to significantly increase the density of the elements. For comparison, the GM107 chip used for the GeForce GTX 750 Ti is even slightly larger — 148 mm², but includes only 1.87 billion transistors. The long-awaited transition from 28 nm to 14 nm is very appropriate here. In the case of the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, the GPU includes 768 compute units, 48 texture units, and 32 rasterizers. For the GTX 1050, a slightly simplified version of the GP107 is used — 640 computers, 40 texture units and 32 ROPs. In both cases, all graphics technologies used for older models based on Pascal are available to the processors. The only exception here is the ability to work in SLI mode, which is not available for basic NVIDIA discrete graphics.
Both new graphics cards use GDDR5 memory running at an effective 7000 MHz. The memory bus is 128 bits, and the total bandwidth in this configuration is 112.1 GB / s. NVIDIA emphasizes that its developers have managed to further improve the compression when transmitting color scheme data, which makes it possible to use the available memory subsystem bandwidth by about 20% more efficiently than what was available for Maxwell. Both GP107 graphics cards have a TDP of 75W. These adapters do not require additional power to operate. The required power can be provided by a PCI Express x16 slot on the motherboard. The recommended price for the GeForce GTX 1050 2 GB is $109. Model GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, equipped with 4 GB of memory, will be offered from $139. The prices are very “tasty”, but it should be borne in mind that this price is relevant for the American market, and besides, it is indicated without taxes. We will only see reference adapters designed by NVIDIA only on presentation slides. But, there is no need to regret it. The partners of the company have already prepared a huge number of their own options for every taste and budget. Today we will take a closer look at one of the original versions of the GeForce GTX 1050. ASUS EX-GTX1050TI-4GASUS introduced four modifications of the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti at once. At the same time, perhaps the most interesting version came to our review. This is a representative of a new line — EXPEDITION, the devices of which are positioned by the manufacturer as reliable solutions for intensive workloads 24/7. The merciless working conditions of the iron are rather typical for all kinds of gaming cafes and clubs that are popular in the Asian region, but those who like to play often at home can adhere to this regime. ASUS EX-GTX1050TI-4G has the recommended frequency formula. GPU base frequency set to 1290 MHz with an average boost up to 1392 MHz. The video card has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory running at an effective 7008 MHz. Package ContentsThe video card is supplied in a compact box. Only the essentials are included in the delivery. Adapter in an anti-static bag, CD with drivers and software, quick start guide and a coupon with a reminder of bonuses in World of Warships (Diana cruiser and 15 days of premium access). Design and layoutThe external design of the ASUS EX-GTX1050TI-4G is simple but not trivial. The body of the adapter is very reminiscent of a bar of almost regular shape. The cooling system is not very complex. The cooler is based on a fairly massive aluminum blank with a non-trivial profile. Heat pipes are not included in the design. The radiator block is blown by a pair of 80 mm axial fans with large blades. At the same time, ball bearings are used for fans, potentially increasing their lifespan. In the case of the GeForce GTX 1050/1050 Ti, the reference model is a rather arbitrary concept. All manufacturers will offer their own versions of printed circuit boards and cooling systems. In this case, the length of the PCB is 212 mm and it determines the overall dimensions of the video card. The adapter has a two-slot design. ASUS EX-GTX1050TI-4G does not require additional power, so the corresponding connector is not provided at all. The manufacturer recommends using a 300W power supply for a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti system. Interface panel layout as recommended. There are three digital video outputs not mounted on the bracket: DVI-D (DL), HDMI and DisplayPort. In operationIn rest mode, the graphics card is in passive mode. It would seem that an adapter with a relatively simple configuration of a heatsink block is unlikely to cope with chip cooling, but the results of the work are shown in the corresponding screenshot. At rest, the GPU frequency drops to 139 MHz at 0.675 V. Therefore, even a modest radiator block is enough to keep the temperature of a tiny economical chip within 30-35 degrees. After a high gaming load (after all tests were completed), the processor temperature at the peak increased to 68 degrees. The fans start spinning at about 60, and to keep the maximum bar, the speed was increased to only 900 rpm. At the same time, the video card works almost silently. Note that during load, the GPU Boost mechanism in normal mode increased the clock speed of the chip to 1695 MHz. OverclockingSince the video card is not equipped with an additional power connector, the Power Limit parameter is limited to 100%, and there is no possibility to adjust the supply voltage, we did not expect any special results in overclocking. Nevertheless, it was still interesting to experiment. And our curiosity was rewarded. Without additional preparations, the base frequency of the GPU was increased to 1541 MHz (+19.4%), while the memory instead of the standard 7008 MHz worked quite stably at 7868 MHz (+12.3%). Even after significant overclocking, the temperature of the chip remained within the same limits, as well as the fan speed. Additional afterburner noticeably shifted the operating frequencies of the GPU. At the peak, the frequency exceeded 1900 MHz, although the average values were lower — 1750-1850 MHz. But the very fact that the GP107 works at such frequencies is impressive. And this is on an adapter without additional power, increasing voltages and expanding energy limits. Of course, for serious overclocking, adapter models are better suited, to which you can additionally supply 75 W via a 12-volt line. Although, first let’s make sure that increasing the frequency of the GPU improves the performance of the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. PerformanceTo evaluate the performance of the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, we used the current models from the opposing camp — Radeon RX 460 4 GB and Radeon RX 470 4 GB. In addition, the charts show the results of the well-deserved GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2 GB, which has long been the starting point for entry-level gaming systems, as well as the GeForce GTX 960 4 GB — a representative of the Maxwell generation, which not so long ago looked appropriate in mid-range gaming PCs. To stay in the frame of reference for NVIDIA’s new solutions, we’ve also added the GeForce GTX 1060 6GB figures. First measurements show that the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4 GB is noticeably faster than the Radeon RX 460 equipped with the same amount of memory. The difference is on average 25-40%. One could say that this is a one-sided game, but here again it is worth recalling that these are not direct competitors at all. A more expensive model from one company is more productive than a device with a lower price tag from another developer. The situation is quite logical. The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti unhooked the GeForce GTX 960 very easily and naturally, leaving no chance for the representative of the previous generation. The advantage of the novelty often falls within the framework of 10-15%. Against this background, an almost twofold advantage over the GeForce GTX 750 Ti looks predictable. It’s hard to compete with Radeon RX 470 based on GP107. The advantage of 20-35% cannot be compensated even with the help of overclocking. But, if we are talking about the influence of self-tuning, then we note that the increase in the frequencies of the chip and memory provided the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti with an increase in the number of frames / s by about 10%. Not much, but quite good considering that it did not take much effort to do this. GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB is a completely different class of devices, so a 70-80% performance difference is not surprising. As a result, the graphical hierarchy of actual models is presented in this way. The starting point is the Radeon RX 460. Given the results of the GTX 1050 Ti, we can assume that the GeForce GTX 1050 will also be more productive than the base version of AMD. A little higher is the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. Then follows the Radeon RX 470. It is curious that just a few days before the start of sales of new NVIDIA solutions, AMD corrected the price of the Radeon RX 460/470, somewhat leveling the situation. For those who want even more, you will have to splurge on the Radeon RX 480 4/8 GB or GeForce GTX 1060 3/6 GB. PriceHaving rejoiced at the pleasant American price tag, you should not count on a similar retail price for GP107-based video cards in Ukraine. According to preliminary data, the recommended starting price of the reviewed GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4 GB in our market will be about UAH 6,000. (~$230). 4.5 ITC.UA score Pros: Cons: Output: |