OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):75 W

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050
4.8/10

Overall score

Score
4.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

40%

3.9

Technical score

25%

3.9

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.9

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 98% of graphics cards
6.3

Value for money

Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

70%

4.8

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 90%
3.9

Technical score

Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

44%

2.2

Performance

24%

1.6

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

7.4

Features

5%

10

Design

4%

5.4

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 94%
3.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models

3.9

Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 95%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1050
gigabyte-geforce-gtx-1050
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050

Based on 0 · 3

The few reviewers mostly agree its cooling works well, with little else singled out for praise or complaint.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050

Based on 216 owners sharing their experience in online comments

58%positive23%mixed19%negative

Owners like its capable gaming performance, but low frame rates and limited VRAM make newer games increasingly difficult.

What owners dislike

  • Low FPS and severe game lag12
  • Owners say the card struggles with newer and demanding games such as Call of Duty, Apex, Helldivers and Resident Evil 4 remake, and several have had to upgrade.12
  • Owners report stutters, freezes and crashes in games such as Fortnite, Company of Heroes 2 and Tarkov, and some laptops overheat during play.9
  • The 2GB of VRAM forces owners to drop texture and detail settings in newer games, and some find high settings impossible because the memory runs out.7
  • Owners say the card falls well behind the GTX 1060 and newer cards in benchmarks and real games, and some feel it is not better than the older GTX 950.5
  • Some owners feel a PS4 gives a smoother and better-looking experience than the GTX 1050 in fast-paced games like FIFA, even at similar frame rates.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050

Technical score
Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components:

44%

2.2

Performance

24%

1.6

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

7.4

Features

5%

10

Design

4%

5.4

Connectivity

3.9
Reviews score
3.9
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components:

70%

4.8

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

6.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,809 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,809 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 96% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
4,667 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 4,667 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 94.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2099 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2099 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 94.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.33 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.33 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 93.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
112.1 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 93.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,008 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,008 MHz, which is slower than that of 89.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
17.28 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 17.28 Gbps, which is slower than on 57.7% of graphics cards and equal to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
75 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 75 W, which is lower than that of 90.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
75 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 75 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
75 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 75 W, which is lower than that of 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
191x 111x 36 mm
Length
167 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 167 mm long, which is shorter than 96.4% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Height
37 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 37 mm tall, which is shorter than 99.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
308 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 308 g, which is lighter than 96.9% of Graphics cards.
Show more

GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 4x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (7,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    7,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 115.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (167 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    167 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 88 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (37 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    37 mm vs 125 mm
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 4.73x cheaper
    GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£110 vs £520).
    £110 vs £520
  • 4x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (7,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    7,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 55.1% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (132 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    132 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 65.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 50% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (6 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    6 W vs 12 W
  • 115.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (167 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    167 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 88 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (37 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    37 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 69.6% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (308 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    308 g vs 1,014 g
  • 39.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,506 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,506 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 45.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models

    3.9

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.9 vs 7.2
  • 35 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (5 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    5 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 144 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (40 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    40 vs 184
  • 45.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 95% of models

    3.9

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.9 vs 7.2
  • 50.0% lower sentiment score
    3.9 vs 7.8
  • 17.3% worse value for money
    GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.32 vs 7.4).
    6.32 vs 7.41
  • 39.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,506 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,506 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 35 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (5 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    5 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 144 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (40 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    40 vs 184
  • 85.7% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (54.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    54.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 28.2% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,379 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,379 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 71.1% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (46.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    46.56 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 89.7% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.33 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    October 2016
    2016 vs 2023
  • 79.4% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (4,667 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    4,667 points vs 22,638 points
  • 87.8% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,809 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,809 points vs 14,779 points
  • 82.6% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2099 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,099 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 87.5% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.06 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,712 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (640 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    640 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 75% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (112.1 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    112.1 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 63.1% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 85.6% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (3,300 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    3,300 million vs 22,900 million
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (3 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    3 vs 6
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 5.7 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (41.1 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    41.1 dB vs 35.4 dB

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Dhananjay Bhosale
≈ estimated
01/09/2017
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and overclocking
Verdict
GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050 is a very good budget card for 1080p gaming, though overclocking headroom is limited.
7.0
Matt's Paddock
≈ estimated
04/02/2017
Hands-on review · benchmarks, cooling and unboxing
Verdict
GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050 is a budget pick for 1080p gaming, though its 2GB of memory limits newer DirectX 12 games.
7.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
22/12/2016
Hands-on review · performance, temperature and overclocking tests
Verdict
GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050 runs cool and quiet but is overpriced, so the base OC model is the one to get.
Shop video
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050

  • Excellent value for budget-conscious gamers and entry-level builds.
  • Extremely power-efficient with low TDP (75W), often requiring no external power connector.
  • Virtually silent operation even under heavy load due to effective cooling designs like Windforce.
  • Solid performance for eSports titles (Overwatch, CS:GO, Fortnite) at 1080p.
  • Compact form factors available, making it ideal for small form factor (SFF) or office PC upgrades.
  • Runs cool with low idle and load temperatures.
  • Includes multiple output options like DisplayPort, HDMI, and DVI.

What customers don't like about GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050

  • Limited 2GB VRAM can be a significant bottleneck for modern AAA games.
  • Struggles to maintain stable frame rates in demanding titles without lowering settings to medium or low.
  • Not future-proof; considered outdated for games released after 2020.
  • Does not support modern features like Ray Tracing or DLSS.
  • Certain high-end Gigabyte models (G1 Gaming) require a 6-pin power connector, which limits compatibility with basic OEM power supplies.
  • Performance gap compared to the GTX 1050 Ti is noticeable for a relatively small price difference.

Verdict

The Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1050 is a budget-oriented graphics card featuring the NVIDIA Pascal GP107 architecture with 640 CUDA cores and 2GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit interface. Gigabyte's variants, such as the Windforce OC, offer factory-overclocked boost speeds up to 1518 MHz and efficient cooling through dual-fan setups or low-profile designs. Main pros include its low 75W power draw that typically requires no external PCIe power connectors, making it an easy 'plug-and-play' upgrade for older systems, and its quiet operation during entry-level 1080p gaming or esports titles. However, its performance is severely limited by the small 2GB VRAM buffer in modern AAA games, it lacks support for newer technologies like ray tracing or DLSS, and its relevance has significantly diminished for contemporary high-resolution gaming.

Compare GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 1050 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found