GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1050 Max-Q outperforms Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 by a small 6% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 461 | 444 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 9.62 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | GP107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) | 3 January 2018 (7 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 | 96 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1190 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1328 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 53.12 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 1.7 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | DDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 112.1 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 data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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.
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.
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 | 40−45
−15%
| 46
+15%
|
| 1440p | 24−27
−12.5%
| 27
+12.5%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−16.7%
| 14
+16.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−12.2%
|
46
+12.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−19.4%
|
37
+19.4%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
−100%
|
112
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−4.9%
|
40−45
+4.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−3.3%
|
90−95
+3.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2.5%
|
40
−2.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−1.4%
|
144
+1.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−70.6%
|
116
+70.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−9.7%
|
34
+9.7%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+14.3%
|
49
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−4.9%
|
40−45
+4.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−28.6%
|
45
+28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−54.5%
|
51
+54.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−45.8%
|
35
+45.8%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−3.3%
|
90−95
+3.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+10.8%
|
37
−10.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−52.9%
|
104
+52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−4.9%
|
40−45
+4.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−3%
|
34
+3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+51.4%
|
37
−51.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−32.4%
|
94
+32.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−10%
|
11
+10%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
−5.8%
|
110−120
+5.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−8.7%
|
24−27
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−10%
|
22
+10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−40%
|
28
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−40%
|
7
+40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−30%
|
13
+30%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−6.1%
|
50−55
+6.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−8.8%
|
37
+8.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
11
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−22.2%
|
11
+22.2%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and GTX 1050 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Max-Q is 15% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Max-Q is 13% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1050 Max-Q is 17% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is 51% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1050 Max-Q is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 is ahead in 5 tests (7%)
- GTX 1050 Max-Q is ahead in 34 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (43%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.95 | 10.53 |
| Recency | 15 August 2020 | 3 January 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 14 nm |
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 1050 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 5.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 and GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
