GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB vs Radeon Pro 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 560 with GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1050 3 GB outperforms Pro 560 by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 475 | 385 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Polaris (2016−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 21 May 2018 (6 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 907 MHz | 1392 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1518 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.05 | 72.86 |
| Floating-point performance | 1.858 gflops | 2.332 gflops |
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 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5080 MHz | 7008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 84.1 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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−36.4%
|
30−33
+36.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−41.7%
|
85−90
+41.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
−40%
|
70−75
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
−41.7%
|
85−90
+41.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−36.4%
|
30−33
+36.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−41.7%
|
85−90
+41.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
−40%
|
70−75
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−42.9%
|
40−45
+42.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
−41.7%
|
85−90
+41.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21−24
−36.4%
|
30−33
+36.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 18−20
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30−33
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
−41.7%
|
85−90
+41.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 50−55
−40%
|
70−75
+40%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 60−65
−41.7%
|
85−90
+41.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−41.2%
|
24−27
+41.2%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−44.7%
|
55−60
+44.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
−42.1%
|
27−30
+42.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 55−60
−40.4%
|
80−85
+40.4%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
−38.9%
|
50−55
+38.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.01 | 13.24 |
| Recency | 5 June 2017 | 21 May 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 3 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 75 Watt |
Pro 560 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 114.3% lower power consumption.
GTX 1050 3 GB, on the other hand, has a 46.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 11 months.
The GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 560 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 560 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
