AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy between these two mobile graphics solutions. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 dominates the AMD Radeon R5 M330 in every benchmark category recorded in the database. Across the two shared tests, the R5 M330 wins zero rounds, while the GTX 1050 takes both. The GeForce GTX 1050's average benchmark score of 3629 sits below the R5 M330's 4170 average, but this is misleading because the R5 M330 only has two recorded tests, both of which are lower than the GTX 1050's corresponding scores. The GTX 1050 shows a 71.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 55.1% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. The R5 M330 is an integrated-class part (IGP slot width) with a 25th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the GTX 1050 ranks at the 21st percentile, meaning the R5 M330 actually sits higher in the overall distribution despite losing this head-to-head. For users facing this choice, the GTX 1050 is the clear performance pick. The R5 M330 only makes sense for systems where the IGP form factor is a requirement, as it draws 18 W versus 75 W and needs no power connectors, but the data shows a massive performance gap that cannot be ignored.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design generations. The AMD Radeon R5 M330 uses the Exo chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 uses the GP107 chip with Pascal architecture, manufactured by Samsung on a 14 nm process. This newer process allows 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The density difference is substantial: the GTX 1050 crams more than double the transistors per area into a chip that is more than twice as large.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The R5 M330 pairs 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1050 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 112.1 GB/s. That is nearly an 8x bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the R5 M330 runs at 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost, while the GTX 1050 operates at 1354 MHz base and 1455 MHz boost. The compute resources scale accordingly. The R5 M330 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The GTX 1050 doubles the shading units to 640, doubles TMUs to 40, and quadruples ROPs to 32. Pixel rate jumps from 8.240 GPixel/s to 46.56 GPixel/s, and texture rate from 20.60 GTexel/s to 58.20 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput rises from 659.2 GFLOPS to 1.862 TFLOPS, nearly a 3x increase. API support also differs: the R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The GTX 1050 also has a discrete FP16 rate of 29.10 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, while the R5 M330 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 1050 wins in every measurable category from the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 15233 versus the R5 M330's 4302, a 71.8% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 8995 versus 4037, a 55.1% lead. The GTX 1050 also has a much broader benchmark footprint, with scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (122), Geekbench Metal (7823), Passmark DirectX 9 (83), DirectX 10 (24), DirectX 11 (38), DirectX 12 (20), G2D (457), G3D (5028), and GPU Compute (2091). The R5 M330 only records two tests, both of which it loses decisively.

The R5 M330 does have a theoretical niche. Its 18 W TDP and IGP slot width indicate it is designed for portable devices where power draw is critical. The GTX 1050, by contrast, is a dual-slot card with a 75 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R5 M330 also has no power connectors, matching the GTX 1050's connector-free design, but the thermal and power envelope differences are significant. The R5 M330's 25th percentile ranking versus the GTX 1050's 21st percentile suggests the AMD part holds a slightly better position in the overall GPU distribution, but this is likely an artifact of the limited test set. For any workload involving OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 1050 is the only rational choice. For battery-constrained ultraportables, the R5 M330's low power draw may be the deciding factor, but the performance cost is severe.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M330 has an average benchmark score of 4170, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 averages 3629. However, the R5 M330 only has two recorded benchmarks, both of which are far lower than the GTX 1050's corresponding scores, so the average comparison is skewed by the limited dataset.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1050 in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1050 scores 15233 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 4302 for the R5 M330, which represents a 71.8% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 1050 has a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory providing 112.1 GB/s, while the R5 M330 uses a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory providing 14.40 GB/s. The GTX 1050 delivers roughly 7.8 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX and Vulkan versions?

A: The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part has the more recent API implementations.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The R5 M330 has an 18 W TDP, while the GTX 1050 has a 75 W TDP. The GTX 1050 also suggests a 250 W PSU, while the R5 M330 lists no PSU requirement. The R5 M330 is an IGP-class part, while the GTX 1050 is dual-slot.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The GTX 1050 contains 3,300 million transistors, while the R5 M330 contains 690 million. The GTX 1050 also uses a smaller 14 nm process from Samsung versus the 28 nm TSMC process for the R5 M330.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two directly comparable tests in the database are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and NVIDIA wins both by wide margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1050 records 15233 points against the R5 M330's 4302 points. The delta is 71.8% in NVIDIA's favor. This is the largest gap in any shared test. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 1050 scores 8995 versus 4037 for the R5 M330, a 55.1% advantage. Both tests stress compute workloads through different APIs, and the NVIDIA part demonstrates superiority in each.

The GTX 1050's other benchmark results provide context for its overall capability. In Passmark G3D, it scores 5028, which is its strong suite. In Geekbench Metal, it reaches 7823. Its weakest direct results are Passmark DirectX 12 at 20 and Passmark DirectX 10 at 24, but these are still recorded scores, unlike the R5 M330 which has no entries for these tests. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 122 further confirms modern workload capability. The R5 M330, by contrast, has no recorded 3DMark, Metal, or Passmark scores, limiting any comparative analysis beyond the two Geekbench tests. The data strongly implies the GTX 1050 would win those unmeasured tests by similar or larger margins, given its hardware advantages in shading units, ROPs, memory bandwidth, and clock speeds. The wins tally is 0 for AMD and 2 for NVIDIA, and the deltas are not close.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M330 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 690 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 955 MHz | 1354 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz | 1455 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective | 1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 112.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 640 |

| TMUs | 20 | 40 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 46.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 58.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 659.2 GFLOPS | 1.862 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | None | 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 18 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Suggested PSU | None | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2016-10-24 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 109 USD |

| Dimensions | None | 145 mm (5.7 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high |

The specification table reveals a generational leap. The GTX 1050 is built on a smaller process, contains nearly 5 times more transistors, runs at higher clocks, has double the shading units, quadruple the ROPs, and offers 7.8 times the memory bandwidth. The R5 M330 is an integrated-class solution with no discrete display outputs, while the GTX 1050 provides three physical outputs. The only areas where the R5 M330 shows an advantage are power draw (18 W versus 75 W) and its IGP form factor, which are meaningful for specific portable designs but do not compensate for the performance deficit shown in every benchmark test.