AMD Radeon R5 M330 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and AMD Radeon R5 M330 occupy the same 25th percentile of all GPUs, yet their benchmark averages are nearly identical: 4193 for the NVIDIA part and 4170 for the AMD part, a delta of just 0.6%. This near-parity in aggregate scores masks a dramatic divergence in individual workloads, where the GTX 1050 Ti leads by triple-digit percentages in compute and modern API tests, while the R5 M330 holds its ground only through the absence of comparable data. The data suggests two very different products that happen to land at the same statistical point.

FAQ

Q: How does the average benchmark score of the GTX 1050 Ti compare to the R5 M330?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti averages 4193, while the R5 M330 averages 4170. The delta is 0.6% in favor of the NVIDIA card, placing both at the 25th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: In which benchmark does the GTX 1050 Ti show its largest lead?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1050 Ti scores 18129 versus 4302 for the R5 M330, a 321.4% advantage. This is the single largest head-to-head delta in the data.

Q: Does the R5 M330 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows two tests — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — and the GTX 1050 Ti wins both, with 2 wins total and 0 for the AMD part.

Q: What is the Vulkan performance gap between the two?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti scores 10001 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 4037 for the R5 M330, representing a 147.7% lead for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare to each card?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti’s closest rival is the R5 M330 itself (0.6% delta), followed by the Quadro K2100M at 1% ahead. The R5 M330’s closest rival is the Quadro K2100M at 0.4% ahead, with the GTX 1050 Ti at 0.5% behind.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference in the specification data?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti offers 112.1 GB/s from 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the R5 M330 provides 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. That is a roughly 7.8x difference in bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for anyone running compute or modern API workloads: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 18129 is more than four times the R5 M330’s 4302, and its Vulkan score of 10001 nearly triples the AMD part’s 4037. The GTX 1050 Ti also has a decisive specification advantage in memory bandwidth (112.1 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s), shading units (768 vs 320), and process node (14 nm vs 28 nm). The R5 M330, however, is not without a niche: it is an 18 W IGP-class part with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs, making it suitable for thin laptops where the 75 W dual-slot GTX 1050 Ti cannot physically fit. For desktop or larger laptop use, the GTX 1050 Ti is the only sensible pick. For ultra-portable systems where the R5 M330 is the only option, it exists as a basic display adapter, not a gaming or compute solution.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are stark. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1050 Ti posts 18129 against the R5 M330’s 4302, a 321.4% delta that dwarfs any other comparison in the fact pack. This is not a marginal win; it is a generational gap. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: 10001 for NVIDIA versus 4037 for AMD, a 147.7% lead. The GTX 1050 Ti wins both available tests, giving it a 2-0 record. The R5 M330’s nearest rival data shows it trailing the Quadro K2100M by only 0.4% and the GTX 1050 Ti by 0.5%, but those averages are pulled from a sparse benchmark set — the R5 M330 has only two recorded scores (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the GTX 1050 Ti has eleven, including Passmark G3D at 6340 and Geekbench Metal at 7834. The averages are close, but the substance behind them is not.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 1050 Ti uses a 14 nm process from Samsung with 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, while the R5 M330 uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. Transistor density is 25.0M per mm² for NVIDIA versus 12.3M per mm² for AMD. Clock speeds differ: the GTX 1050 Ti runs at 1291 MHz base and 1392 MHz boost, while the R5 M330 runs at 955 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. Memory is a major split: 4 GB GDDR5 at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus for NVIDIA, versus 2 GB DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on a 64-bit bus for AMD. Bandwidth is 112.1 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the R5 M330 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 44.54 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 66.82 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.138 TFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS. The GTX 1050 Ti is a dual-slot, 75 W card requiring a 250 W PSU, while the R5 M330 is an 18 W IGP with no slot width. Bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA, PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the GTX 1050 Ti, versus portable-device-dependent for the R5 M330.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 1050 Ti is built on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, using the GP107 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 10-series. The R5 M330 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, with the chip codenamed Exo, from the Gem System (R5 M300) generation. The process node gap is significant: 14 nm Samsung versus 28 nm TSMC, which explains the transistor density difference (25.0M vs 12.3M per mm²). The GTX 1050 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; the R5 M330 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card has no RT or tensor cores, and neither does the AMD part. FP16 performance is listed for the GTX 1050 Ti at 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the R5 M330 has no FP16 data. The GTX 1050 Ti’s predecessor is GeForce 900 and successor is GeForce 20; the R5 M330’s predecessor is Solar System and successor is Polaris Mobile. Release dates differ by about 17 months: October 2016 for NVIDIA, May 2015 for AMD. The GTX 1050 Ti has a launch MSRP of 139 USD; the R5 M330 has no launch MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1050 Ti wins decisively in every head-to-head benchmark and every specification category that matters for performance. Its 321.4% OpenCL lead and 147.7% Vulkan lead make it the clear choice for compute tasks, modern API gaming, and any workload that leverages shader throughput. The 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s means texture-heavy scenes and large data transfers will favor NVIDIA overwhelmingly. The 768 shading units versus 320, and 32 ROPs versus 8, suggest rasterization and pixel fill rates are far superior — the pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s confirms this. The GTX 1050 Ti also has a broader benchmark footprint, with Passmark G3D at 6340 and Geekbench Metal at 7834, indicating sustained performance across legacy and modern APIs. The R5 M330’s only wins are contextual: it draws 18 W versus 75 W, needs no power connectors, and is an IGP, meaning it can exist in thin laptops where the dual-slot GTX 1050 Ti cannot. Its 2 GB DDR3 memory and 64-bit bus are adequate for basic display output and light 2D workloads, but the Passmark G2D score of 651 on the NVIDIA side (the R5 M330 has no G2D score) suggests even 2D performance favors the GTX 1050 Ti. For any user with a choice, the data is unambiguous: the GTX 1050 Ti wins on compute, graphics, memory, and API support. The R5 M330 wins only on power efficiency and physical footprint, which are valid but narrow criteria for a niche set of portable devices.