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

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£160VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):75 W

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB
4.6/10

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 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 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

3.7

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

3.7

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 99% of graphics cards
6.2

Value for money

Value for money
6.2/ 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 93% of models
Score components

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 93%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 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 96% of models
Score components

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

1.5

Memory

12%

7.8

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.8

Design

4%

5.5

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 96%
3.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.7/ 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 97% of models

3.7

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, 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 97%
?

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
  • zotac-geforce-gtx-1050-mini-2gb
zotac-geforce-gtx-1050-mini-2gb
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 owners say about the ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB

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 ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 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 96% of models
Score components:

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

1.5

Memory

12%

7.8

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.8

Design

4%

5.5

Connectivity

3.7
Reviews score
3.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 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 93% of models
Score components:

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

6.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1910 points
Market range: <4k points – >34k points
This graphics card scores 1910 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 95.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k 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
5,037 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 5,037 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 93.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% 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
1.86 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.86 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 94.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 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
?
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <64 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 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 112 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 94.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 90.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.1% 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
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
75 W
Market range: <60 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: <100 W – >400 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
?
PCIe power spec
?
Show more
Size
?
Length
145 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 145 mm long, which is shorter than 98.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Height
?
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
370 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 370 g, which is lighter than 95.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB 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
  • 137.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (145 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    145 mm vs 282.2 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
  • 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
  • 3.25x cheaper
    ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£160 vs £520).
    £160 vs £520
  • 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
  • 63.5% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (370 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    370 g vs 1,014 g
  • 3.25x cheaper
    ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£160 vs £520).
    £160 vs £520
  • 0.1% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,752 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,752 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 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
  • 137.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (145 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    145 mm vs 282.2 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
  • 63.5% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (370 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    370 g vs 1,014 g
  • 41.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,455 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,455 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
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 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 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, 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.
    3.7 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
    ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB 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
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 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 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, 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.
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 52.6% lower sentiment score
    3.7 vs 7.8
  • 20.4% worse value for money
    ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.16 vs 7.4).
    6.16 vs 7.41
  • 41.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,455 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,455 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
  • 80.7% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (72.9 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    72.86 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 29.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,354 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,354 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
  • 91.8% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.86 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    2,016 vs 2,023
  • 77.7% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (5,037 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    5,037 points vs 22,638 points
  • 87.1% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1910 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,910 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
  • 85.4% 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.
    0.07 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 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    112 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 63.2% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,000 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
    ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB 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).
    3.0 vs 4.0
  • 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
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3.0 vs 3.1
  • 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.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 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
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 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
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

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

8.0
Romeo Lass
≈ estimated
23/11/2017
Gameplay test · Crysis 3 at 1080p high
Verdict
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB runs Crysis 3 at 1080p on high settings, holding around 35 to 40 fps.
Not graded
Not graded
Shop video

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB

  • A 75 W power draw keeps the card's power needs low.
  • The 145 mm length suits compact cases.
  • The 370 g weight keeps the card light.
  • CUDA support works with software that uses it.
  • FSR upscaling gives some games extra frame rate.
  • Overclocking is supported for extra speed.

What customers don't like about ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB

  • 2 GB of memory is tight for newer games.
  • No ray tracing, so newer lighting effects are missing.
  • No AI upscalers and no DLSS, so FSR is the only upscaling option.
  • Only one DisplayPort output, and three displays is the most it supports.
  • It is not VR ready, so headsets are out.

Verdict

A 300 W power supply is enough for the ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB, which draws 75 W under peak load. That makes it a sensible pick for a small or older desktop that needs a modest gaming boost. Its 145 mm length and 370 g weight suit compact cases, and CUDA and FSR upscaling add some flexibility. The trade-off is memory: 2 GB and 112 GB/s bandwidth set a clear ceiling, and a 3DMark Time Spy score of 1910 points means demanding games need lower settings. There is no ray tracing and no DLSS. It has one DisplayPort output and one DVI port, so older monitors can still connect. It suits a tight budget and a casual player who wants a light, low-power card, not the newest big releases.

Compare ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB 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 ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini 2GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found