Component comparison
GeForce MX550 vs GeForce GTX 1050
GeForce MX550 vs GeForce GTX 1050 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX550
- + Release year (+4)
- + Lithography (nm) (-2 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+1,400M)
- + CUDA cores (+256)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+0.49 TFLOPS)
- + Energy efficiency (+21.8)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+58)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+16639)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+16603)
- + Normalized score (+17.8)
B
GeForce GTX 1050
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+5508 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+16 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+50 W)
- + Die size (mm²) (+68 mm²)
- + TMUs (+16)
- + ROPs (+8)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+25.44 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+15.96 GTexel/s)
- + PassMark (overall) (+629)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX550
|
Component B
GeForce GTX 1050
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2021 (+4) | 2017 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 7008 MHz (+5508 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 96 GB/s | 112 GB/s (+16 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 128 bit (+64 bit) |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W | 75 W (+50 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm (-2 nm) | 14 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M (+1,400M) | 3,300M |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² | 132 mm² (+68 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1065 MHz | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1320 MHz | — |
| CUDA cores | 1,024 (+256) | 768 |
| TMUs | 32 | 48 (+16) |
| ROPs | 16 | 24 (+8) |
| RT cores | — | — |
| Tensor cores | — | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 2.70 TFLOPS (+0.49 TFLOPS) | 2.21 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 21.12 GPixel/s | 46.56 GPixel/s (+25.44 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 42.24 GTexel/s | 58.20 GTexel/s (+15.96 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 32.8 (+21.8) | 11.0 |
| PassMark (overall) | 4,419 | 5,048 (+629) |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 2,470 | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 6,126 (+58) | 6,068 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 34,068 (+16639) | 17,429 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 32,369 (+16603) | 15,766 |
| Normalized score | 49.1 (+17.8) | 31.3 |
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX550 | GeForce GTX 1050 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 45 FPS | 51 FPS | 13.3% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55 FPS | 65 FPS | 18.2% (B) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21 FPS | 24 FPS | 14.3% (B) |
| Dota 2 | 111 FPS | 126 FPS | 13.5% (B) |
| Far Cry 5 | 45 FPS | 39 FPS | +15.4% (A) |
| Fortnite | 60 FPS | 132 FPS | 120% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45 FPS | 55 FPS | 22.2% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47 FPS | 35 FPS | +34.3% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 21 FPS | 19 FPS | +10.5% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21 FPS | 24 FPS | 14.3% (B) |
| The Witcher 3 | 50 FPS | 39 FPS | +28.2% (A) |
| Valorant | 95 FPS | 100 FPS | 5.3% (B) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
Components are close in specs.
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).