AMD Radeon R7 M340 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M340 scores 4,932. The NVIDIA part leads by 72.8% in this test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon R7 M340 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head comparisons, the GTX 1050 Ti wins both tests. The R7 M340 has zero wins across the two benchmark entries.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two cards?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti has 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth using 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The R7 M340 has 16.00 GB/s with 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti packs 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die. The R7 M340 has 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti delivers 44.54 GPixel/s, which is over five times the R7 M340's 8.168 GPixel/s.

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

A: The R7 M340 averages 5,063 points, while the GTX 1050 Ti averages 4,193 points. The NVIDIA card sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, and the AMD card sits at the 30th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 is built on the GCN 3.0 architecture using the Meso chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti uses the Pascal architecture with the GP107 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This process node difference is significant: the GTX 1050 Ti achieves a transistor density of 25.0M per mm², exactly double the R7 M340's 12.4M per mm².

The compute configurations diverge sharply. The R7 M340 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That means the NVIDIA chip has 2.4 times the shading units, 2.4 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs. The FP32 throughput reflects this: the GTX 1050 Ti reaches 2.138 TFLOPS versus 653.4 GFLOPS for the AMD part. For FP16, the R7 M340 runs at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (653.4 GFLOPS), while the GTX 1050 Ti runs at a 1:64 ratio, producing only 33.41 GFLOPS. The Pascal architecture clearly prioritizes FP32 compute, while GCN 3.0 offers equal FP16 and FP32 rates.

Clock speeds also differ. The R7 M340 has a base clock of 943 MHz and a boost of 1021 MHz. The GTX 1050 Ti runs at 1291 MHz base and 1392 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card is roughly 37% higher on boost clock. Memory architecture is another major split: the AMD card uses DDR3 at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) with a 64-bit bus, while the NVIDIA card uses GDDR5 at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) with a 128-bit bus.

API support differs slightly. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 1050 Ti supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the R7 M340 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The bus interface also differs: the R7 M340 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 1050 Ti uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two compute-oriented tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129 against the R7 M340's 4,932. The delta is 72.8% in favor of NVIDIA. This is the largest margin in the head-to-head set. The OpenCL result aligns with the raw compute specifications: the GTX 1050 Ti has 2.138 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 768 shading units, while the R7 M340 has 653.4 GFLOPS and 320 shading units. The NVIDIA card's 7 Gbps effective GDDR5 memory with 112.1 GB/s bandwidth also contributes to this substantial lead.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows but remains one-sided. The GTX 1050 Ti scores 10,001, while the R7 M340 scores 5,193. The delta is 48.1% in NVIDIA's favor. Vulkan load balancing and driver overhead may explain the smaller gap relative to OpenCL, but the Pascal chip still delivers nearly double the score. The R7 M340's Vulkan support is 1.2.170, while the GTX 1050 Ti supports Vulkan 1.4, which could influence driver efficiency and feature coverage in this workload.

Across both tests, the NVIDIA card wins 2 out of 2. The R7 M340 wins 0. The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story: the R7 M340 averages 5,063 (30th percentile), while the GTX 1050 Ti averages 4,193 (25th percentile). This discrepancy arises because the GTX 1050 Ti's average includes many DirectX and PassMark tests in which the R7 M340 has no recorded entries. The head-to-head tests are the only apples-to-apples comparison in the database, and they favor NVIDIA by a wide margin.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M340 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti |

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

| Process node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 3,300 million |

| Die size | 125 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor density | 12.4M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base clock | 943 MHz | 1291 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1021 MHz | 1392 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 112.1 GB/s |

| Shading units | 320 | 768 |

| TMUs | 20 | 48 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel rate | 8.168 GPixel/s | 44.54 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 20.42 GTexel/s | 66.82 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 653.4 GFLOPS | 2.138 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 653.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | Not specified | 75 W |

| Slot width | Not specified | Dual-slot |

| Power connectors | Not specified | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

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

The R7 M340 has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, or suggested PSU values in the database. The GTX 1050 Ti specifies a 75 W TDP, dual-slot design, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 1050 Ti also has recorded dimensions: 145 mm length (5.7 inches) and 111 mm height (4.4 inches). The R7 M340 has no dimensions recorded.

The GTX 1050 Ti offers display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The R7 M340 has no display outputs listed. The GTX 1050 Ti launched with an MSRP of 139 USD, while the R7 M340 has no launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. Its advantages are comprehensive: 4 times the ROPs, 2.4 times the shading units, 7 times the memory bandwidth, and over 3 times the FP32 throughput. The 14 nm Samsung process delivers double the transistor density of the 28 nm TSMC node, which translates directly into higher clocks and efficiency. The GTX 1050 Ti also has 4 GB of GDDR5 versus 2 GB of DDR3, which matters for texture-heavy workloads and larger frame buffers.

The AMD Radeon R7 M340 has one structural advantage: FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, delivering 653.4 GFLOPS in both precisions. The GTX 1050 Ti's FP16 is heavily reduced at 33.41 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio. Applications that exclusively use FP16 arithmetic would see the R7 M340 offer parity between its FP32 and FP16 rates, but the GTX 1050 Ti's absolute FP32 advantage of 2.138 TFLOPS versus 653.4 GFLOPS makes this a narrow niche. The R7 M340 also has a higher average benchmark score (5,063 versus 4,193) and a higher percentile ranking (30th versus 25th), though this is driven by the broader benchmark set where the AMD card has fewer recorded tests.

For compute workloads measured in the head-to-head comparisons, the GTX 1050 Ti is the clear choice. For legacy or FP16-specific compute tasks, the R7 M340's 1:1 FP16 ratio is a unique feature, but the database does not include a direct FP16 benchmark to quantify its impact.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is the stronger GPU in every head-to-head test recorded. It wins Geekbench OpenCL by 72.8% and Geekbench Vulkan by 48.1%. The specification sheet supports this dominance: a 14 nm process, 3,300 million transistors, 768 shading units, 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth, and a 1392 MHz boost clock. The R7 M340 cannot match any of these figures.

The R7 M340 is a low-power mobile-class part from 2015, built on an older 28 nm process with a 64-bit DDR3 memory bus. Its 16.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is a fraction of the GTX 1050 Ti's 112.1 GB/s. The pixel rate difference is stark: 8.168 GPixel/s versus 44.54 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 20.42 GTexel/s versus 66.82 GTexel/s. These are not close numbers.

The GTX 1050 Ti also offers better API support: DirectX 12_1 versus 12_0, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. It uses a full PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the R7 M340's x8. It has a defined 75 W TDP, dual-slot form factor, and no external power connectors, with a 250 W suggested PSU. The R7 M340 has none of these specifications recorded.

The only scenario where the R7 M340 looks competitive is in the average benchmark score (5,063 versus 4,193) and percentile (30th versus 25th). But the database's head-to-head tests, which compare both cards on identical workloads, show the NVIDIA part ahead by 48% to 73%. The average score gap is an artifact of different test suites, not a sign of parity.

Who should pick which? The GTX 1050 Ti is the choice for anyone running OpenCL or Vulkan compute workloads, given its 2-1 win record and massive margins. The R7 M340 is the choice only if FP16 throughput at a 1:1 ratio matters, or if a lower-performance, lower-power mobile GPU is the only form factor available. The GTX 1050 Ti's launch MSRP was 139 USD, but the database does not record a launch price for the R7 M340. For raw performance, architectural efficiency, memory bandwidth, and API coverage, the GTX 1050 Ti wins outright.