GeForce GTX 960 vs GeForce GTX 1050 : Which one is better?
Home
GPU Comparison
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050
VS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050
We compared two Desktop platform GPUs: 2GB VRAM GeForce GTX 960 and 2GB VRAM GeForce GTX 1050 to see which GPU has better performance in key specifications, benchmark tests, power consumption, etc.
Main Differences
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960’s Advantages
Larger VRAM bandwidth (112.2GB/s vs 112.1GB/s)
384 additional rendering cores
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050’s Advantages
Released 1 years and 9 months late
Boost Clock has increased by 24% (1455MHz vs 1178MHz)
Lower TDP (75W vs 120W)
Benchmark
FP32 (float)
GeForce GTX 960
+29%
2. 413 TFLOPS
GeForce GTX 1050
1.862 TFLOPS
FP64 (double)
GeForce GTX 960
+29%
0.075 TFLOPS
GeForce GTX 1050
0.058 TFLOPS
3DMark Time Spy
GeForce GTX 960
+31%
2281
GeForce GTX 1050
1738
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2160p
GeForce GTX 960
+25%
10
GeForce GTX 1050
8
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1440p
GeForce GTX 960
+38%
25
GeForce GTX 1050
18
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1080p
GeForce GTX 960
+12%
35
GeForce GTX 1050
31
GeForce GTX 960
VS
GeForce GTX 1050
Graphics Processor
GM206
GPU Name
GP107
GM206-300-A1
GPU Variant
GP107-300-A1
Maxwell 2.
0
Architecture
Pascal
TSMC
Foundry
Samsung
28 nm
Process Size
14 nm
2,940 million
Transistors
3,300 million
228mm²
Die Size
132mm²
Graphics Card
Jan 2015
Release Date
Oct 2016
GeForce 900
Generation
GeForce 10
Desktop
Type
Desktop
PCIe 3.
0 x16
Bus Interface
PCIe 3.0 x16
Clock Speeds
1127MHz
Base Clock
1354MHz
1178MHz
Boost Clock
1455MHz
1753MHz
Memory Clock
1752MHz
Memory
2GB
Memory Size
2GB
GDDR5
Memory Type
GDDR5
128bit
Memory Bus
128bit
112.
2 GB/s
Bandwidth
112.1 GB/s
Render Config
1024
Shading Units
640
-
SM Count
5
-
Tensor Cores
-
-
RT Cores
-
48 KB (per SMM)
L1 Cache
48 KB (per SM)
1024KB
L2 Cache
1024KB
Theoretical Performance
37.
70 GPixel/s
Pixel Rate
46.56 GPixel/s
75.39 GTexel/s
Texture Rate
58.20 GTexel/s
-
FP16 (half)
29.10 GFLOPS
2.413 TFLOPS
FP32 (float)
1.862 TFLOPS
75.39 GFLOPS
FP64 (double)
58.
20 GFLOPS
Board Design
120W
TDP
75W
300W
Suggested PSU
250W
1x DVI
1x HDMI 2.0
3x DisplayPort 1.4a
Outputs
1x DVI
1x HDMI 2.0
1x DisplayPort 1.4a
1x 6-pin
Power Connectors
None
Graphics Features
12 (12_1)
DirectX
12 (12_1)
4.
6
OpenGL
4.6
3.0
OpenCL
3.0
1.3
Vulkan
1.3
5.2
CUDA
6.1
6.4
Shader Model
6.4
Related GPU Comparisons
1
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
2
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060
3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB
4
Intel Iris Xe Graphics 80EU vs
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 8 GB GA104
6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs
AMD Radeon RX 580
7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 vs
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950
8
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs
NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 DDR4
9
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs
ATI Radeon HD 3850 X3
10
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs
AMD FirePro W9100
© 2023 — TopCPU.
net
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs Intel HD Graphics 4000
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 and Intel HD Graphics 4000 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies.
Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark, Geekbench — OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.
0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
Buy on Amazon
vs
Intel HD Graphics 4000
Buy on Amazon
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- Around 73% higher core clock speed: 1127 MHz vs 650 MHz
- Around 12% higher boost clock speed: 1178 MHz vs 1050 MHz
- 17.1x more texture fill rate: 72 billion / sec vs 4.2 GTexel / s
- 64x more pipelines: 1024 vs 16
- 71.8x better floating-point performance: 2,413 gflops vs 33.6 gflops
- 17.6x better performance in PassMark — G3D Mark: 6032 vs 342
- 3.6x better performance in PassMark — G2D Mark: 676 vs 189
- 32.5x better performance in Geekbench — OpenCL: 17475 vs 538
- 8.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s): 73.733 vs 8.712
- 5.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.
5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 792.44 vs 155.638 - 5.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.888 vs 0.931
- 4.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.338 vs 7.36
- 16.7x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 200.825 vs 12.009
- 9.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7218 vs 754
- 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames): 3691 vs 1492
- Around 39% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames): 3335 vs 2392
- 9.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7218 vs 754
- 2.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps): 3691 vs 1492
- Around 39% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps): 3335 vs 2392
| Launch date | 22 January 2015 vs 14 May 2012 |
| Core clock speed | 1127 MHz vs 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1178 MHz vs 1050 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 72 billion / sec vs 4. 2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 1024 vs 16 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,413 gflops vs 33.6 gflops |
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 6032 vs 342 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 676 vs 189 |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 17475 vs 538 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 73.733 vs 8.712 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 792.44 vs 155.638 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) |
4.888 vs 0.931 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.338 vs 7.36 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 200.825 vs 12.009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7218 vs 754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) | 3691 vs 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3335 vs 2392 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7218 vs 754 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Fps) |
3691 vs 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3335 vs 2392 |
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 4000
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 28 nm
- 2.7x lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 120 Watt
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 120 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4000
| PassMark — G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark — G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench — OpenCL |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 | Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark — G3D Mark | 6032 | 342 |
| PassMark — G2D Mark | 676 | 189 |
| Geekbench — OpenCL | 17475 | 538 |
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
73.733 | 8.712 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 792.44 | 155.638 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) | 4.888 | 0.931 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.338 | 7.36 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 200.825 | 12.009 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 7218 | 754 |
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) |
3691 | 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) | 3335 | 2392 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 7218 | 754 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) | 3691 | 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) | 3335 | 2392 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score | 2282 | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Maxwell 2. 0 |
Generation 7.0 |
| Code name | GM206 | Ivy Bridge GT2 |
| Launch date | 22 January 2015 | 14 May 2012 |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | |
| Place in performance rating | 462 | 1466 |
| Price now | $229.99 | |
| Type | Desktop | Laptop |
| Value for money (0-100) | 34. 63 |
|
| Boost clock speed | 1178 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1127 MHz | 650 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 1024 | |
| Floating-point performance | 2,413 gflops | 33.6 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 22 nm |
| Pipelines | 1024 | 16 |
| Texture fill rate | 72 billion / sec | 4. 2 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 120 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2,940 million | 1,200 million |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| Display Connectors | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2, 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDCP | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048×1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3. 0 |
|
| Height | 4.376″ (11.1 cm) | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 9.5″ (24.1 cm) | |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 400 Watt | |
| SLI options | 2x | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pins | |
| DirectX | 12. 0 (12_1) |
11.1 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.0 |
| Vulkan | ||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 / 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | |
| Shared memory | 0 | 1 |
| CUDA | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Quick Sync |
GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs GeForce GTX 960
Page Content
- GPU
- Video Card
- Frequency
- Memory
- Performance
- Design and dimensions
- Graphics
- Other features
9000 6 Render
GPU
| Chip | GP107 | GM206 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chip variation | GP107-301-K1-A1 | GM206-300-A1 a | Pascal | Maxwell 2. 0 |
| Manufacturer | Samsung | TSMC | ||
| Process | 14 nm | 28 nm | ||
| Transistors | 3.300 million | 2.940 million | ||
| Die size | 132 mm² | 228 mm² |
Video card
| Release date a | May 21st, 2018 | Jan 22nd, 2015 |
|---|---|---|
| Generation | GeForce 10 | GeForce 900 |
| Predecessor | GeForce 900 | GeForce 700 |
| Successor | GeForce 20 | GeForce 10 |
| Production | End-of-life | End-of-life |
| Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Reviews | 58 in our database | 124 in our database |
| Release price | — | 199 USD |
Frequency
| Base frequency 9Boost | 1518 MHz | 1178 MHz |
|---|---|---|
| 1752 MHz 7 Gbps effective | 1753 MHz 7 Gbps effective |
Memory
| Memory size | 3 GB | 2 GB |
|---|---|---|
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory bus | 96 bit | 128 bit |
| Bandwidth | 84. 10 GB/s |
112.2 GB/s 90 033 |
Render
| Shaders | 768 | 1024 |
|---|---|---|
| TMUs | 48 | 64 |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| 6 | — | |
| L1 cache | 48 KB (per SM) | 48 KB (per SMM) |
| L2 cache 9 0031 | 768 KB | 1024 KB |
| Qty SMM | — | 8 |
Performance
| Pixel rate | 36.43 GPixel/s | |
|---|---|---|
| Texture rate | 72.86 GTexel/s | 75.39 GTexel/s |
| Performance FP16 | 36.43 GFLOPS (1:64) | — |
| FP32 performance | 2.332 TFLOPS | 2.413 TFLOPS |
| FP64 performance | 72.86 GFLOPS (1:32) | 75.39 GFLOPS (1:32) |
| Slot width lot | Dual-slot |
|---|---|
| Length | 145 mm 5.
|