NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q vs AMD Radeon E9550 MXM

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q and AMD Radeon E9550 MXM 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 Ti Max-Q

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 3 month(s) later
• Around 3% higher core clock speed: 1152 MHz vs 1120 MHz
• Around 12% higher boost clock speed: 1417 MHz vs 1266 MHz
• Around 27% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 95 Watt
• Around 40% higher memory clock speed: 7008 MHz vs 5000 MHz
• Around 22% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8059 vs 6622
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3208
• Around 22% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8059 vs 6622
• Around 5% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3208

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon E9550 MXM

• 2.7x more texture fill rate: 182.3 GTexel / s vs 68.02 GTexel / s
• 3x more pipelines: 2304 vs 768
• 2.7x better floating-point performance: 5,834 gflops vs 2,177 gflops
• 2x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
• Around 86% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 36624 vs 19710
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 112.64 vs 54.188
• Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.586 vs 1159.046
• Around 72% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 9.473 vs 5.507
• Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 96.618 vs 82.067
• Around 73% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 507.291 vs 293.638
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3597 vs 3579
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3597 vs 3579

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
GPU 2: AMD Radeon E9550 MXM

Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	19710 36624
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	54.188 112.64
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1159.046 1474.586
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5.507 9.473
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	82.067 96.618
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	293.638 507.291
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8059 6622
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3579 3597
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3208
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8059 6622
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3579 3597
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3208

Compare specifications (specs)