GeForce RTX 4050 vs GTX 1060 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile with GeForce RTX 4050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4050 outperforms GTX 1060 Mobile by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 285 | 125 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 41 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 27.62 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 16.98 | 25.81 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GP106 | AD107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2016 (8 years ago) | 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $237.11 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1506 MHz | 2505 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1708 MHz | 2640 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,400 million | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 133.6 | 211.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.275 TFLOPS | 13.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 120 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 18 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 12-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2002 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 216.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | DP 1.43, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | 2.2 | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.9 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 68
−76.5%
| 120−130
+76.5%
|
| 1440p | 44
−81.8%
| 80−85
+81.8%
|
| 4K | 30
−83.3%
| 55−60
+83.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.49 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.39 | no data |
| 4K | 7.90 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40
−87.5%
|
75−80
+87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
−89.2%
|
70−75
+89.2%
|
| Elden Ring | 53
−88.7%
|
100−105
+88.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 63
−74.6%
|
110−120
+74.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 32
−87.5%
|
60−65
+87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
−87.5%
|
60−65
+87.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 106
−88.7%
|
200−210
+88.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 69
−88.4%
|
130−140
+88.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 74
−89.2%
|
140−150
+89.2%
|
| Valorant | 86
−86%
|
160−170
+86%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 73
−78.1%
|
130−140
+78.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
−85.2%
|
50−55
+85.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
−73.1%
|
45−50
+73.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 49
−83.7%
|
90−95
+83.7%
|
| Elden Ring | 65
−84.6%
|
120−130
+84.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
−85.7%
|
130−140
+85.7%
|
| Fortnite | 94
−80.9%
|
170−180
+80.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
−87.5%
|
150−160
+87.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 74
−89.2%
|
140−150
+89.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
−83.7%
|
90−95
+83.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 204
−71.6%
|
350−400
+71.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
−85.2%
|
50−55
+85.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75
−86.7%
|
140−150
+86.7%
|
| Valorant | 53
−88.7%
|
100−105
+88.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 222
−80.2%
|
400−450
+80.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 57
−75.4%
|
100−105
+75.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−85.7%
|
65−70
+85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
−73.9%
|
40−45
+73.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
−86.4%
|
220−230
+86.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−81.8%
|
120−130
+81.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 68
−76.5%
|
120−130
+76.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55
−81.8%
|
100−105
+81.8%
|
| Valorant | 72
−80.6%
|
130−140
+80.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−77.4%
|
55−60
+77.4%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
−81.8%
|
60−65
+81.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−77.4%
|
55−60
+77.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−76.5%
|
300−310
+76.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 17
−76.5%
|
30−33
+76.5%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
−86.6%
|
250−260
+86.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 42
−78.6%
|
75−80
+78.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−88.7%
|
100−105
+88.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−86.3%
|
95−100
+86.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45
−88.9%
|
85−90
+88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−85.2%
|
50−55
+85.2%
|
| Valorant | 46
−84.8%
|
85−90
+84.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−76.5%
|
60−65
+76.5%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
−71.4%
|
24−27
+71.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−81.8%
|
60−65
+81.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14
−71.4%
|
24−27
+71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 64
−87.5%
|
120−130
+87.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 11
−63.6%
|
18−20
+63.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−81.8%
|
60−65
+81.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
−81.8%
|
40−45
+81.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−76.5%
|
60−65
+76.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−80%
|
45−50
+80%
|
| Fortnite | 26
−73.1%
|
45−50
+73.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−89.7%
|
55−60
+89.7%
|
| Valorant | 23
−73.9%
|
40−45
+73.9%
|
This is how GTX 1060 Mobile and RTX 4050 compete in popular games:
- RTX 4050 is 76% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4050 is 82% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4050 is 83% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.73 | 37.50 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 100 Watt |
GTX 1060 Mobile has 25% lower power consumption.
RTX 4050, on the other hand, has a 90.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4050 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 4050 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
