NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) vs AMD Radeon R7 260X

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook) and AMD Radeon R7 260X 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.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 3 month(s) later
• Around 49% higher boost clock speed: 1493 MHz vs 1000 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 16 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 53% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 115 Watt
• Around 40% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4462 vs 3183
• Around 54% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.209 vs 43.745
• Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 4.536 vs 3.673
• Around 1% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.683 vs 221.539
• Around 88% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 7239 vs 3845
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3721 vs 3485
• Around 88% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 7239 vs 3845
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3721 vs 3485
• Around 41% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2085 vs 1481

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 260X

• Around 3% higher texture fill rate: 61.6 GTexel / s vs 59.72 GTexel / s
• Around 40% higher pipelines: 896 vs 640
• Around 3% better floating-point performance: 1,971 gflops vs 1,911 gflops
• Around 78% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 521 vs 292
• Around 1% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 804.436 vs 799.414
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 64.088 vs 30.523

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Notebook)
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 260X

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	4462 3183
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	292 521
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	67.209 43.745
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	799.414 804.436
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4.536 3.673
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	30.523 64.088
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	223.683 221.539
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7239 3845
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3721 3485
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3359 3358
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7239 3845
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3721 3485
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3359 3358
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	2085 1481

Compare specifications (specs)