GeForce GTX 1050 Ti VS GeForce GTX 1650
We are comparing the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti ( NVIDIA ) head-to-head with the GeForce GTX 1650 ( NVIDIA ) . You’ll get the key pros and cons of each graphics card, in-depth specs, and gaming benchmarks.
Note: This comparison of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs. GeForce GTX 1650 is based on Comparigon's analysis and is for informational purposes only.
Last Updated: August 20, 2026
Overall Comparison
KEY DIFFERENCES OF GeForce GTX 1050 Ti AND GeForce GTX 1650
Here’s how GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1650 stack up against each other in their most impactful areas. Use these bullets to see at a glance which graphics card excels where.
Why GeForce GTX 1650 is the best choice:
-
50% higher 1440p Ultra FPS (21 vs 14)
-
60% higher 1080p Ultra FPS (32 vs 20)
-
20% higher Boost Clock (1665 MHz vs 1392 MHz)
-
51% higher 3DMark Time Spy score (3562 vs 2352)
-
24% higher PassMark G3D Mark score (7871 vs 6360)
SPECIFICATION TABLE COMPARISON OF GeForce GTX 1050 Ti AND GeForce GTX 1650
Below is the detailed specification table comparing GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1650.
Note: Highlighted specs mean that GPU wins that spec row.
If neither side is highlighted, it is a tie or there is not enough data for both specs.
| Specification | GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | GeForce GTX 1650 |
|---|---|---|
|
General Info
|
||
| GPU Name: | GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | GeForce GTX 1650 |
| GPU Type: | Discrete | Discrete |
| Codename: | GP107 | TU117 |
| Vendor: | NVIDIA | NVIDIA |
| Foundry: | Samsung | TSMC |
| Architecture: | Pascal | Turing |
| Generation: | GeForce 10 | GeForce 16 |
| Release Date: | October 25, 2016 | April 23, 2019 |
|
Board Design
|
||
| Bus Interface: | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| PCIe Version: | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCIe Lanes: | 16 | 16 |
| Process Size: | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Transistors: | 3.3 billion | 4.7 billion |
| Density: | 25.0 MTr/mm² | 23.5 MTr/mm² |
| Die Size: | 132 mm² | 200 mm² |
| Board Length: | 145 mm | 229 mm |
| Board Width: | — | 35 mm |
| Board Height: | 111 mm | 111 mm |
| Total Graphics Power (TGP): | 75 W | 75 W |
|
Graphics Processor
|
||
| Compute Units: | 6 | 14 |
| Shading Units: | 768 | 896 |
| Texture Mapping Units (TMUs): | 48 | 56 |
| Render Output Units (ROPs): | 32 | 32 |
| Base Clock: | 1291 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost Clock: | 1392 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| L1 Cache: | 48 KB (per SM) | 64 KB (per SM) |
| L2 Cache: | 1024 KB | 1024 KB |
|
Raw Performance
|
||
| Pixel Fill Rate: | 44.54 GPixel/s | 53.28 GPixel/s |
| Texture Fill Rate: | 66.82 GTexel/s | 93.24 GTexel/s |
| FP32 Performance: | 2.138 TFLOPs | 2.984 TFLOPs |
|
Memory
|
||
| Memory Type: | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Size: | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Bus Width: | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| Memory Clock: | 1752 MHz | 2001 MHz |
| Effective Memory Speed: | 7000 Mbps | 8000 Mbps |
| Bandwidth: | 112.1 GB/s | 128.1 GB/s |
|
APIs
|
||
| DirectX: | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan: | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| OpenGL: | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL: | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| CUDA: | 6.1 | 7.5 |
| DisplayPort: | 1.4a | 1.4a |
| HDMI: | 2.0 | 2.0 |
|
Gaming FPS
|
||
| 1080p Ultra (FPS): | 20 | 32 |
| 1440p Ultra (FPS): | 14 | 21 |
| 4K Ultra (FPS): | — | 11 |
|
Benchmarks
|
||
|
3D Mark
|
||
| Steel Nomad Lite | 2312 | 3416 |
| Time Spy | 2352 | 3562 |
| Solar Bay | — | 12278 |
| Fire Strike | 7702 | 9691 |
| Wild Life Extreme | 4903 | 7360 |
| Night Raid | 33477 | 46157 |
|
GeekBench 6 OpenCL
|
||
| Compute Score | 21180 | 39481 |
| Background Blur | 56.6 img/sec | 66.4 img/sec |
| Face Detection | 27.4 img/sec | 43.3 img/sec |
| Horizon Detection | 0.82 Gpixels/sec | 1.51 Gpixels/sec |
| Edge Detection | 1.2 Gpixels/sec | 1.68 Gpixels/sec |
| Gaussian Blur | 1.27 Gpixels/sec | 1.87 Gpixels/sec |
| Feature Matching | 0.18 Gpixels/sec | 0.49 Gpixels/sec |
| Stereo Matching | 66.3 Gpixels/sec | 187.9 Gpixels/sec |
| Particle Physics | 1916.5 | 5261.5 |
|
Passmark Graphics
|
||
| G3D Mark | 6360 | 7871 |
| G2D Mark | 655 | 553 |
| DirectX 11 | 44 | 58 |
| DirectX 12 | 26 | 35 |
| GPU Compute | 2664 | 3035 |
|
Blender (Rendering)
|
||
| Blender Score | 219 | 451 |
|
GeekBench 6 ML
|
||
| Single Precision | 4117 | 7569 |
| Half Precision | 3560 | 5940 |
| Quantized | 3084 | 5581 |
| Image Classification | 1518 | 3208 |
| Image Segmentation | 2085 | 4254 |
| Image Super Resolution | 4847 | 7050 |
| Face Detection | 3275 | 6849 |
| Pose Estimation | 16118 | 23562 |
| Text Classification | 1440 | 1755 |
| Machine Translation | 1875 | 3096 |
| Object Detection | 1743 | 3710 |
| Depth Estimation | 6258 | 12946 |
| Style Transfer | 26368 | 48894 |
| Framework | ONNX | ONNX |
| Backend | DirectML | DirectML |
Tip: ▲ indicates a higher-is-better spec advantage, while ▼ indicates a lower-is-better advantage.
PERFORMANCE CHART COMPARISON OF GeForce GTX 1050 Ti AND GeForce GTX 1650
The charts below visualize how GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1650 stack up in key performance metrics.
Radar Chart Comparison
Bullet Chart Comparison
Release Timeline of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti was released 2 years, 5 months, 29 days earlier than GeForce GTX 1650.
Value For Money Calculator
Prices use available launch or current data. Enter your own prices to see which GPU gives better value.
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
GeForce GTX 1650
Calculating...
Domain Score Summary
Note: Scores (0 to 100) are generated by Comparigon’s scoring algorithm and are intended as a high-level guide. They may not map 1-to-1 with the individual spec-by-spec comparisons shown in the table.
Our Verdict
In conclusion, the GeForce GTX 1650 is slightly better overall compared to the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. It comes out ahead across every comparable key area.
Try to Compare Again One of These GPUs With Another GPU
Pick which GPU to keep, then search for the other GPU to compare.