Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 based on its benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details GeForce GTX 780 vs 1050 |
Released May, 2013
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780
- 863 MHz
- 3 GB GDDR5
7.2 Out of 10
by techPowerUp!While the technical aspects of the cooler are certainly nice, it cannot compete with NVIDIA's reference design cooler visually, which is without a doubt the best-looking one in the industry.
VS
Released October, 2016
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
- 1.4 GHz
- 2 GB GDDR5
6.8 Out of 10
by www.tweaktown.com (Oct, 2016)NVIDIA's impressive Pascal architecture has some nice tricks under its 16nm FinFET hood, but the Twin Frozr VI cooler is 40% quieter than its predecessor (the Twin Frozr V), and it also keeps the card 20% cooler.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 780 vs 1050 among all GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 7.2 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Nvidia GeForce GTX 780GPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Better PassMark score | 7,976 | vs | 4,443 | Around 80% better PassMark score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly higher memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | vs | 112.1 GB/s | More than 2.5x higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Significantly higher texture rate | 165.7 GTexel/s | vs | 58.2 GTexel/s | More than 2.8x higher texture rate | |||
| Many more texture mapping units | 192 | vs | 40 | 152 more texture mapping units | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 3,977 GFLOPS | vs | 1,862 GFLOPS | Around 2.2x better floating-point performance | |||
| Significantly more shading units | 2,304 | vs | 640 | 1664 more shading units | |||
| More memory | 3,072 MB | vs | 2,048 MB | 50% more memory | |||
| Significantly better ocean surface simulation score | 1,929.94 frames/s | vs | 1,118.95 frames/s | More than 70% better ocean surface simulation score | |||
| More render output processors | 48 | vs | 32 | 16 more render output processors | |||
| Better PassMark direct compute score | 3,971 | vs | 2,863 | Around 40% better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Higher battlefield 4 framerate | 74 | vs | 54 | More than 35% higher battlefield 4 framerate | |||
| Slightly wider memory bus | 384 bit | vs | 128 bit | 3x wider memory bus | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 1,354 MHz | vs | 863 MHz | More than 55% higher clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher turbo clock speed | 1,455 MHz | vs | 902 MHz | More than 60% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Higher effective memory clock speed | 7,008 MHz | vs | 6,008 MHz | More than 15% higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Higher memory clock speed | 1,752 MHz | vs | 1,502 MHz | More than 15% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Much lower TDP | 75W | vs | 250W | 3.3x lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
