ATI Radeon X1050 vs R9 370
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 370 and Radeon X1050, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 370 outperforms ATI X1050 by a whopping 9315% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 400 | 1436 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.76 | 0.38 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Rage 9 (2003−2006) |
| GPU code name | Trinidad | RV370 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) | 7 December 2006 (17 years ago) |
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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 975 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 107 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 24 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 78.00 | 1.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.496 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 80 | 4 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz | 333 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 5.328 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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. 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. 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.
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 | 45 | -0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.24 | 0.13 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 7 December 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 24 Watt |
R9 370 has a 9315.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.
ATI X1050, on the other hand, has 358.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1050 in performance tests.
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.
