NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 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 2 year(s) 11 month(s) later
• Around 2% higher core clock speed: 1152 MHz vs 1127 MHz
• Around 20% higher boost clock speed: 1417 MHz vs 1178 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 60% lower typical power consumption: 75 Watt vs 120 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• 1001.1x more memory clock speed: 7008 MHz vs 7.0 GB/s
• Around 7% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 19895 vs 18663
• Around 46% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1159.046 vs 792.44
• Around 13% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.507 vs 4.888
• 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 82.067 vs 35.338
• Around 46% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 293.638 vs 200.825
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8059 vs 7218
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 3335
• Around 12% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8059 vs 7218
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 3335
• 14.1x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2219 vs 157

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

• Around 6% higher texture fill rate: 72 billion / sec vs 68.02 GTexel / s
• Around 33% higher pipelines: 1024 vs 768
• Around 11% better floating-point performance: 2,413 gflops vs 2,177 gflops
• Around 14% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 6100 vs 5332
• Around 94% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 673 vs 347
• Around 36% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 73.733 vs 54.188
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3691 vs 3579
• Around 3% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3691 vs 3579

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	5332 6100
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	347 673
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	19895 18663
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	54.188 73.733
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1159.046 792.44
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5.507 4.888
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	82.067 35.338
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	293.638 200.825
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8059 7218
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3579 3691
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3335
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8059 7218
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3579 3691
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3335
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	2219 157

Compare specifications (specs)