Component comparison
GeForce GTX 1050 vs GeForce 940M
GeForce GTX 1050 vs GeForce 940M — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce GTX 1050
- + Release year (+2)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+6108 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+98 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + Lithography (nm) (-14 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+1,430M)
- + Die size (mm²) (+16 mm²)
- + CUDA cores (+384)
- + TMUs (+24)
- + ROPs (+16)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+1.31 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+28.99 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+23.06 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+4.6)
- + PassMark (overall) (+3915)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+4446)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+11404)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+11217)
- + Normalized score (+25.1)
B
GeForce 940M
Components are close in specs
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce GTX 1050
|
Component B
GeForce 940M
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2017 (+2) | 2015 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 7008 MHz (+6108 MHz) | 900 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 112 GB/s (+98 GB/s) | 14 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit (+64 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 75 W | 75 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 14 nm (-14 nm) | 28 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 3,300M (+1,430M) | 1,870M |
| Die size (mm²) | 132 mm² (+16 mm²) | 148 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 1020 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1098 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 768 (+384) | 384 |
| TMUs | 48 (+24) | 24 |
| ROPs | 24 (+16) | 8 |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 2.21 TFLOPS (+1.31 TFLOPS) | 0.90 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 46.56 GPixel/s (+28.99 GPixel/s) | 17.57 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 58.20 GTexel/s (+23.06 GTexel/s) | 35.14 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 11.0 (+4.6) | 6.4 |
| PassMark (overall) | 5,048 (+3915) | 1,133 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 6,068 (+4446) | 1,622 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 17,429 (+11404) | 6,025 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 15,766 (+11217) | 4,549 |
| Normalized score | 31.3 (+25.1) | 6.2 |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce GTX 1050 | GeForce 940M | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anno 1800 | 17 FPS | 7 FPS | +142.9% (A) |
| Anno 2205 | 44 FPS | 10 FPS | +340% (A) |
| Ashes of the Singularity | 26 FPS | 9 FPS | +188.9% (A) |
| Assassin´s Creed Origins | 22 FPS | 10 FPS | +120% (A) |
| Batman: Arkham Knight | 32 FPS | 12 FPS | +166.7% (A) |
| Battlefield 1 | 47 FPS | 15 FPS | +213.3% (A) |
| Battlefield 5 | 51 FPS | 17 FPS | +200% (A) |
| Battlefield Hardline | 80 FPS | 17 FPS | +370.6% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Call of Duty Infinite Warfare | 51 FPS | 19 FPS | +168.4% (A) |
| Call of Duty WWII | 45 FPS | 18 FPS | +150% (A) |
| Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 | 52 FPS | 14 FPS | +271.4% (A) |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65 FPS | 9 FPS | +622.2% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24 FPS | 5 FPS | +380% (A) |
| Darksiders III | 40 FPS | 13 FPS | +207.7% (A) |
| Dirt 4 | 46 FPS | 18 FPS | +155.6% (A) |
| Dirt Rally | 88 FPS | 21 FPS | +319% (A) |
| Doom | 38 FPS | 17 FPS | +123.5% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 126 FPS | 49 FPS | +157.1% (A) |
| Dragon Age: Inquisition | 44 FPS | 11 FPS | +300% (A) |
| ELEX | 34 FPS | 11 FPS | +209.1% (A) |
| F1 2018 | 47 FPS | 17 FPS | +176.5% (A) |
| F1 2019 | 55 FPS | 18 FPS | +205.6% (A) |
| FIFA 17 | 144 FPS | 43 FPS | +234.9% (A) |
| FIFA 19 | 103 FPS | 34 FPS | +202.9% (A) |
| Fallout 4 | 38 FPS | 11 FPS | +245.5% (A) |
| Fallout 76 | 40 FPS | 12 FPS | +233.3% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 39 FPS | 11 FPS | +254.5% (A) |
| Far Cry Primal | 41 FPS | 12 FPS | +241.7% (A) |
| Farming Simulator 19 | 60 FPS | 19 FPS | +215.8% (A) |
| For Honor | 42 FPS | 14 FPS | +200% (A) |
| Fortnite | 132 FPS | 36 FPS | +266.7% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55 FPS | 14 FPS | +292.9% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35 FPS | 6 FPS | +483.3% (A) |
| GRID: Autosport | 87 FPS | 30 FPS | +190% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| GTA V | 66 FPS | 14 FPS | +371.4% (A) |
| Ghost Recon Wildlands | 28 FPS | 10 FPS | +180% (A) |
| Hitman 2016 | 34 FPS | 10 FPS | +240% (A) |
| Just Cause 3 | 48 FPS | 17 FPS | +182.4% (A) |
| Kingdom Come: Deliverance | 31 FPS | 10 FPS | +210% (A) |
| League of Legends | 135 FPS | 121 FPS | +11.6% (A) |
| Mad Max | 70 FPS | 20 FPS | +250% (A) |
| Metal Gear Solid V | 60 FPS | 16 FPS | +275% (A) |
| Metro Exodus | 19 FPS | 2 FPS | +850% (A) |
| Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor | 59 FPS | 13 FPS | +353.8% (A) |
| Mirror's Edge Catalyst | 40 FPS | 12 FPS | +233.3% (A) |
| Need for Speed 2016 | 63 FPS | 16 FPS | +293.8% (A) |
| Need for Speed Payback | 44 FPS | 13 FPS | +238.5% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Rainbow Six Siege | 57 FPS | 20 FPS | +185% (A) |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 24 FPS | 3 FPS | +700% (A) |
| Resident Evil 7 | 55 FPS | 15 FPS | +266.7% (A) |
| Rise of the Tomb Raider | 31 FPS | 10 FPS | +210% (A) |
| Rocket League | 64 FPS | 24 FPS | +166.7% (A) |
| Star Wars Battlefront | 60 FPS | 13 FPS | +361.5% (A) |
| Star Wars Battlefront 2 | 43 FPS | 13 FPS | +230.8% (A) |
| Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order | 39 FPS | 11 FPS | +254.5% (A) |
| The Crew 2 | 37 FPS | 11 FPS | +236.4% (A) |
| The Division | 33 FPS | 10 FPS | +230% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 39 FPS | 10 FPS | +290% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 29 FPS | 10 FPS | +190% (A) |
| Titanfall 2 | 53 FPS | 18 FPS | +194.4% (A) |
| Total War: Three Kingdoms | 24 FPS | 9 FPS | +166.7% (A) |
| Valorant | 100 FPS | 40 FPS | +150% (A) |
| World of Warships | 92 FPS | 37 FPS | +148.6% (A) |
| XCOM 2 | 27 FPS | 7 FPS | +285.7% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce GTX 1050 wins 19 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).