GeForce GTX 1050 vs Radeon Pro Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with GeForce GTX 1050, including specs and performance data.
Pro Vega 56 outperforms GTX 1050 by a whopping 146% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 180 | 400 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 13 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 48.51 | 11.41 |
| Power efficiency | 10.49 | 11.96 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 25 October 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $109 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Pro Vega 56 has 325% better value for money than GTX 1050.
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 | 3584 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1138 MHz | 1290 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1392 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 97 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 280.0 | 58.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.96 TFLOPS | 1.862 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 224 | 40 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.38" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | no data | 300 Watt |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI | no data | - |
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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 786 MHz | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 402.4 GB/s | 112 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI |
| 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 | no data | 3.0 |
| VR Ready | no data | + |
| Ansel | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 96
+118%
| 44
−118%
|
| 1440p | 55−60
+139%
| 23
−139%
|
| 4K | 57
+148%
| 23
−148%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.16
−67.8%
| 2.48
+67.8%
|
| 1440p | 7.25
−53.1%
| 4.74
+53.1%
|
| 4K | 7.00
−47.7%
| 4.74
+47.7%
|
- GTX 1050 has 68% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1050 has 53% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1050 has 48% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+177%
|
30−35
−177%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+473%
|
11
−473%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+168%
|
24−27
−168%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+177%
|
30−35
−177%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+100%
|
56
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+950%
|
6
−950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+168%
|
24−27
−168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+139%
|
40−45
−139%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+94.4%
|
70−75
−94.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+125%
|
50−55
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+164%
|
30−35
−164%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+170%
|
40−45
−170%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+77.6%
|
100−110
−77.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 85−90
+177%
|
30−35
−177%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+160%
|
43
−160%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+9.6%
|
250
−9.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+168%
|
24−27
−168%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
−15.9%
|
124
+15.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+139%
|
40−45
−139%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+160%
|
53
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+139%
|
49
−139%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+164%
|
30−35
−164%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+98.1%
|
53
−98.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+300%
|
17
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+170%
|
40−45
−170%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+205%
|
38
−205%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+77.6%
|
100−110
−77.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+211%
|
36
−211%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+186%
|
21−24
−186%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+168%
|
24−27
−168%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
−9.8%
|
112
+9.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+139%
|
40−45
−139%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+244%
|
34
−244%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+164%
|
30−35
−164%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+170%
|
40−45
−170%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+220%
|
20
−220%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+579%
|
28
−579%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
+229%
|
42
−229%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+73.3%
|
14−16
−73.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+125%
|
90−95
−125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+714%
|
7
−714%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+86.2%
|
90−95
−86.2%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+72.7%
|
130−140
−72.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+200%
|
27
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+191%
|
10−12
−191%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+169%
|
24−27
−169%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+167%
|
30−33
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+141%
|
21−24
−141%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+174%
|
18−20
−174%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+188%
|
24−27
−188%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+146%
|
24
−146%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+225%
|
8−9
−225%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 42
+180%
|
15
−180%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+173%
|
65−70
−173%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+176%
|
16−18
−176%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+104%
|
47
−104%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+177%
|
12−14
−177%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+157%
|
21−24
−157%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+218%
|
10−12
−218%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
This is how Pro Vega 56 and GTX 1050 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 56 is 118% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 56 is 139% faster in 1440p
- Pro Vega 56 is 148% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 950% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1050 is 16% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro Vega 56 is ahead in 65 tests (97%)
- GTX 1050 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.14 | 13.08 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 25 October 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 75 Watt |
Pro Vega 56 has a 145.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 1050, on the other hand, has 180% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 1050 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
