ATI Radeon X1050 vs RX Vega 56

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 and Radeon X1050, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
32.71
+27158%

RX Vega 56 outperforms ATI X1050 by a whopping 27158% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1541440
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation23.03no data
Power efficiency11.230.36
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Rage 9 (2003−2006)
GPU code nameVega 10RV370
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)7 December 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores3584no data
Core clock speed1156 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1471 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million107 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt24 Watt
Texture fill rate329.51.600
Floating-point processing power10.54 TFLOPSno data
ROPs644
TMUs2244

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinNone

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 typeHBM2DDR2
Maximum RAM amount8 GB128 MB
Memory bus width2048 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz333 MHz
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s5.328 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.1.125N/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.

RX Vega 56 32.71
+27158%
ATI X1050 0.12

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.

RX Vega 56 13174
+26786%
ATI X1050 49

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 HD115-0−1
1440p74-0−1
4K48-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.47no data
1440p5.39no data
4K8.31no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 65−70 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 88 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 65−70 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 160−170 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 85−90 0−1
Metro Exodus 96 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70 0−1
Valorant 130−140 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 156 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 65−70 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75 0−1
Dota 2 63 0−1
Far Cry 5 90−95 0−1
Fortnite 140 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 160−170 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 85−90 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 94 0−1
Metro Exodus 73 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 180−190 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110−120 0−1
Valorant 130−140 0−1
World of Tanks 270−280
+27700%
1−2
−27700%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 80 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 65−70 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75 0−1
Dota 2 110−120 0−1
Far Cry 5 90−95 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 160−170 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 85−90 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 112 0−1
Valorant 130−140 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 60−65 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35 0−1
World of Tanks 210−220 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 67 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 0−1
Far Cry 5 100−110 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 95−100 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 55−60 0−1
Metro Exodus 74 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60 0−1
Valorant 100−110 0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Dota 2 50 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 50 0−1
Metro Exodus 27 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Dota 2 65−70 0−1
Far Cry 5 45−50 0−1
Fortnite 45−50 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 30−35 0−1
Valorant 50−55 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 32.71 0.12
Recency 14 August 2017 7 December 2006
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 110 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 24 Watt

RX Vega 56 has a 27158.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.

ATI X1050, on the other hand, has 775% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 56 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
Radeon RX Vega 56
ATI Radeon X1050
Radeon X1050

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 820 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 20 votes

Rate Radeon X1050 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.