Radeon X1050 AGP vs GeForce GTX 960 : Which one is better?
Home
GPU Comparison
ATI Radeon X1050 AGP vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
VS
ATI Radeon X1050 AGP
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
We compared two Desktop platform GPUs: 128MB VRAM Radeon X1050 AGP and 2GB VRAM GeForce GTX 960 to see which GPU has better performance in key specifications, benchmark tests, power consumption, etc.
Main Differences
ATI Radeon X1050 AGP’s Advantages
Lower TDP (24W vs 120W)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960’s Advantages
Released 7 years and 2 months late
Boost Clock 1178MHz
Larger VRAM bandwidth (112.2GB/s vs 6.496GB/s)
1024 additional rendering cores
Benchmark
Radeon X1050 AGP
VS
GeForce GTX 960
Graphics Processor
RV360
GPU Name
GM206
-
GPU Variant
GM206-300-A1
Rage 9
Architecture
Maxwell 2. 0
TSMC
Foundry
TSMC
130 nm
Process Size
28 nm
60 million
Transistors
2,940 million
76mm²
Die Size
228mm²
Graphics Card
Nov 2007
Release Date
Jan 2015
Radeon R300
Generation
GeForce 900
Desktop
Type
Desktop
AGP 8x
Bus Interface
PCIe 3.
0 x16
Clock Speeds
-
Base Clock
1127MHz
-
Boost Clock
1178MHz
203MHz
Memory Clock
1753MHz
Memory
128MB
Memory Size
2GB
DDR
Memory Type
GDDR5
128bit
Memory Bus
128bit
6.
496 GB/s
Bandwidth
112.2 GB/s
Render Config
-
Shading Units
1024
-
SM Count
-
-
Tensor Cores
-
-
RT Cores
-
-
L1 Cache
48 KB (per SMM)
-
L2 Cache
1024KB
Theoretical Performance
1.
000 GPixel/s
Pixel Rate
37.70 GPixel/s
1.000 GTexel/s
Texture Rate
75.39 GTexel/s
-
FP16 (half)
-
-
FP32 (float)
2.413 TFLOPS
-
FP64 (double)
75.
39 GFLOPS
Board Design
24W
TDP
120W
200W
Suggested PSU
300W
1x DVI
1x VGA
1x S-Video
Outputs
1x DVI
1x HDMI 2.0
3x DisplayPort 1.4a
None
Power Connectors
1x 6-pin
Graphics Features
9.0 (9_0)
DirectX
12 (12_1)
2.
0
OpenGL
4.6
N/A
OpenCL
3.0
N/A
Vulkan
1.3
-
CUDA
5.2
-
Shader Model
6.4
Related GPU Comparisons
1
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 8 GB vs
ATI Radeon X1050 AGP
2
NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 PCIe x1 vs
ATI Radeon X1050 AGP
3
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050
4
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
5
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB
6
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
7
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs
AMD Radeon RX 580
8
ATI Radeon X1050 AGP vs
NVIDIA NVS 510
9
ATI Radeon X1050 AGP vs
AMD Radeon RX 7500 XT
10
ATI Radeon X1050 AGP vs
ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO
© 2023 — TopCPU.
net
Contact Us
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
- 32.4x better performance in Geekbench — OpenCL: 17423 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 | 17423 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 | 17423 | 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.
|