AMD Radeon R5 M420 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 scores 15,233, while the AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3,956. That works out to a 74% delta in favor of the GTX 1050 — the R5 M420 is not merely slower, it is in a different performance tier entirely. To put that gap in context, the R5 M420’s nearest rival in the overall database is the NVIDIA GeForce 830M, which scores 3,957 — effectively identical. The GTX 1050, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3,616) and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3,649) in its own benchmark neighborhood, despite being a much newer part. The raw score difference between the two cards is 11,277 points, which is roughly three times the R5 M420’s entire output.

The GTX 1050 also has a much broader benchmark footprint. It appears in eleven separate tests spanning DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, Metal, Vulkan, and compute workloads. Its PassMark G3D score is 5,028, its Geekbench Vulkan score is 8,995, and its Geekbench Metal score is 7,823. The R5 M420 has only the one Geekbench OpenCL result, so there is no way to compare it across those other APIs. What the data does show is that the GTX 1050’s OpenCL score alone exceeds the R5 M420’s by a factor of 3.85. Even the GTX 1050’s weakest DirectX result — a PassMark DirectX 12 score of 20 — is not directly comparable to anything on the AMD side, but the overall pattern is consistent: the NVIDIA part dominates every measurable compute and graphics workload.

Notably, the percentile rankings tell a slightly different story. The R5 M420 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1050 sits at the 21st percentile. That means the R5 M420 actually ranks higher relative to the entire database, despite being dramatically slower in absolute terms. This is explained by the average benchmark scores: the R5 M420’s average is 3,956, while the GTX 1050’s average is 3,629 — lower because its many additional benchmarks include several low DirectX scores that drag the mean down. The Geekbench OpenCL score is the only head-to-head metric, and it is unambiguous, but the aggregate picture shows that the GTX 1050’s strengths are concentrated in compute and modern API performance rather than legacy DirectX rasterization.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries, different process nodes, and fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 M420 uses the Jet 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 on Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. That node is considerably more advanced, allowing 3,300 million transistors in a 132 mm² die — a density of 25.0 million per square millimeter, more than double the AMD part. The transistor count difference is nearly 5x in NVIDIA’s favor, and the density advantage reflects the more modern manufacturing process.

The clock speeds reinforce the architectural gap. The R5 M420 runs at a base clock of 780 MHz with an 850 MHz boost, while the GTX 1050 starts at 1,354 MHz base and boosts to 1,455 MHz. That is a 574 MHz difference at base and a 605 MHz difference at boost — roughly 74% and 71% higher respectively. Memory clocks are similarly lopsided: the R5 M420 uses 1,000 MHz DDR3 with 2 Gbps effective data rate, while the GTX 1050 uses 1,752 MHz GDDR5 with 7 Gbps effective. The memory bus width is 64-bit on the AMD side versus 128-bit on the NVIDIA side, and the resulting bandwidth is 16.00 GB/s versus 112.1 GB/s — a 7x difference.

The compute resources are structured differently as well. The R5 M420 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output pipelines. The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs — exactly double the shaders and TMUs, and four times the ROPs. Pixel rate is 6.800 GPixel/s for the AMD part versus 46.56 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part. Texture rate is 17.00 GTexel/s versus 58.20 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 544.0 GFLOPS versus 1.862 TFLOPS. The GTX 1050 also lists an FP16 rate of 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64), while the R5 M420 has no FP16 figure at all. In every compute metric, the NVIDIA card holds a commanding lead.

API support differs meaningfully. The R5 M420 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX feature level is higher on the NVIDIA side, and the Vulkan version is more recent. The bus interface also differs: the R5 M420 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 1050 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The R5 M420 is an integrated graphics part with an IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs, whereas the GTX 1050 is a dual-slot discrete card with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The GTX 1050 lists a TDP of 75 W, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and no power connectors; the R5 M420 lists no TDP, no PSU recommendation, and no power connectors.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 is the faster card by every measurable metric in the head-to-head comparison. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 15,233 is 74% higher than the Radeon R5 M420’s 3,956. It has more than twice the shading units, four times the ROPs, a 7x memory bandwidth advantage, and a significantly higher clock speed across the board. The architecture is newer — Pascal versus GCN 1.0 — and built on a more advanced 14 nm process versus 28 nm. The GTX 1050 also supports a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_1) and a newer Vulkan version.

However, the percentile rankings complicate a simple "buy the GTX 1050" verdict. The R5 M420 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1050 sits at the 21st percentile. The R5 M420 also has a higher average benchmark score (3,956 versus 3,629) because the GTX 1050’s many additional benchmarks include several low DirectX scores. This suggests the R5 M420 is more consistent in its single measured workload, while the GTX 1050 has a wider range of performance depending on the API. For users targeting modern compute or Vulkan workloads, the GTX 1050 is overwhelmingly superior. For users who only care about the single OpenCL metric, the R5 M420’s score is actually higher than the GTX 1050’s average — but that is a statistical artifact, not a real advantage.

The R5 M420 is an integrated part with no TDP listed, no discrete power connectors, and no standalone display outputs. The GTX 1050 is a dual-slot discrete card with a 75 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 1050 also has a launch MSRP of 109 USD. The R5 M420 has no launch MSRP. For any workload that benefits from raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or modern API features, the GTX 1050 is the only rational choice from this data. The R5 M420’s only arguable advantage is its integrated nature, which implies lower system complexity, but the data does not quantify that benefit.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 scores 15,233, which is 74% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M420’s 3,956.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 1050 has a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory running at 7 Gbps effective, yielding 112.1 GB/s. The R5 M420 has a 64-bit bus with DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective, yielding 16.00 GB/s.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The GTX 1050 has a density of 25.0 million transistors per square millimeter on a 132 mm² die, while the R5 M420 has 12.3 million per square millimeter on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer DirectX feature level?

A: The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R5 M420 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: No. The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, exactly double the R5 M420’s 320.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The R5 M420 has an average benchmark score of 3,956, while the GTX 1050 has an average of 3,629 — the R5 M420 is higher because the GTX 1050 has many additional lower DirectX scores.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 wins every head-to-head benchmark where data exists. Its Geekbench OpenCL score beats the R5 M420 by 74%. It also wins on every architectural metric: shading units (640 versus 320), TMUs (40 versus 20), ROPs (32 versus 8), pixel rate (46.56 GPixel/s versus 6.800 GPixel/s), texture rate (58.20 GTexel/s versus 17.00 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (1.862 TFLOPS versus 544.0 GFLOPS). The GTX 1050 also has a higher base clock (1,354 MHz versus 780 MHz), a higher boost clock (1,455 MHz versus 850 MHz), and a wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit). It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the R5 M420’s DirectX 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. The GTX 1050’s additional benchmark results — PassMark G3D at 5,028, Geekbench Vulkan at 8,995, Geekbench Metal at 7,823 — all represent workloads where the R5 M420 has no comparable data.

The AMD Radeon R5 M420 wins only in aggregate percentile ranking: 23rd percentile versus the GTX 1050’s 21st. It also has a higher average benchmark score (3,956 versus 3,629) because the GTX 1050’s many DirectX scores are low (e.g., PassMark DirectX 12 at 20, DirectX 10 at 24, DirectX 11 at 38, DirectX 9 at 83). The R5 M420’s single benchmark score is consistent, while the GTX 1050 shows a wide spread from 20 to 15,233. In terms of physical characteristics, the R5 M420 is an IGP with no power connectors and no display outputs of its own, making it suitable only for portable devices where the GTX 1050’s dual-slot discrete design would not fit. The R5 M420 also has a smaller die (56 mm² versus 132 mm²) and fewer transistors (690 million versus 3,300 million), which implies lower manufacturing complexity — though the data does not quantify any efficiency benefit.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M420 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (Samsung) |

| Transistors | 690 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 132 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 780 MHz | 1,354 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 850 MHz | 1,455 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1,000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 112.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 640 |

| TMUs | 20 | 40 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.800 GPixel/s | 46.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.00 GTexel/s | 58.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 544.0 GFLOPS | 1.862 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | Not listed | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 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) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2016-05-14 | 2016-10-24 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | GeForce 900 |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | GeForce 20 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 109 USD |