NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Comparison

The comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce 830M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 is a study in generational contrast. The 830M is a Maxwell-based mobile part from the GeForce 800M series, aimed at basic portable graphics, while the GTX 1050 is a Pascal-based desktop GPU from the GeForce 10-series, built for mainstream gaming. The benchmark data reveals a decisive performance gap, but the architectural and specification differences explain exactly why that gap exists.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmark results show a complete sweep for the GTX 1050. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 1050 scores 15,233, while the 830M manages 4,324. This translates to a deltaPct of -71.6% for the 830M, meaning the older mobile GPU delivers less than a third of the compute performance in this workload. The margin is substantial: the GTX 1050 is roughly 3.5 times faster in raw OpenCL throughput, a figure that reflects the massive difference in shading units and memory bandwidth between the two products.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though the gap narrows slightly in percentage terms. The GTX 1050 posts 8,995 points against the 830M’s 3,590, resulting in a deltaPct of -60.1%. While the absolute difference is still large, the Vulkan result shows the 830M is relatively less disadvantaged in API-level workloads than in OpenCL. Still, the GTX 1050’s score is 2.5 times higher, and the win count stands at 2 for the GTX 1050 and 0 for the 830M across the entire head-to-head dataset.

Contextualizing these scores against each card’s nearest rivals reinforces the divide. The 830M’s average benchmark score is 3,957, which places it at the 24th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3,956 (0% delta), with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M close behind at 3,953 (0.1% delta). The GTX 1050, however, has an average benchmark score of 3,629, which is oddly lower than its head-to-head OpenCL result. This puts it at the 21st percentile, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M at 3,616 (0.4% delta). The GTX 1050’s average score is dragged down by its many Passmark results, which include low DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores (83, 24, 38, and 20, respectively) alongside a Passmark G3D score of 5,028. The 830M lacks these Passmark entries, so its average is based solely on the two Geekbench tests.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is unambiguous for compute-heavy tasks: the GTX 1050 wins every head-to-head benchmark by a wide margin. The 830M’s 4,324 OpenCL score cannot compete with the GTX 1050’s 15,233, and the Vulkan result (3,590 vs. 8,995) shows the same pattern. Anyone needing OpenCL or Vulkan performance for general-purpose GPU compute or modern API-based rendering should select the GTX 1050 without hesitation.

However, the 830M is not without a niche. Its 33W TDP and IGP slot width indicate it is designed for thin-and-light laptops where power draw and heat dissipation are critical. The GTX 1050, with a 75W TDP and dual-slot footprint, requires a dedicated power envelope and physical space that many portable systems cannot accommodate. For users constrained by a mobile chassis, the 830M is the only viable option between the two, despite its lower scores. The GTX 1050 also carries a launch MSRP of 109 USD, but its desktop form factor and higher power requirement make it unsuitable for the 830M’s intended environment.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between the two GPUs is the root cause of their performance disparity. The 830M uses the GM108 chip built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die for a density of 13.2M transistors per mm². In contrast, the GTX 1050 uses the GP107 chip on a 14 nm Samsung process, housing 3,300 million transistors across a 132 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.0M per mm². The newer node allows the GTX 1050 to pack over three times the transistors while using a smaller relative process, directly enabling its higher core counts and clock speeds.

The core configuration differences are stark. The 830M has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The GTX 1050 more than doubles the shading units to 640, increases TMUs to 40, and quadruples ROPs to 32. These figures translate into a theoretical pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s for the 830M versus 46.56 GPixel/s for the GTX 1050 — a 5x advantage in fill-rate capability. Texture rate follows suit: 18.40 GTexel/s versus 58.20 GTexel/s. FP32 compute jumps from 588.8 GFLOPS on the 830M to 1.862 TFLOPS on the GTX 1050, a 3.2x increase. The GTX 1050 also lists FP16 at 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64), while the 830M has no FP16 data.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The 830M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of just 14.40 GB/s. The GTX 1050 also has 2 GB, but it is GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.1 GB/s — a 7.8x increase in memory throughput. This bandwidth advantage is critical for modern games and compute workloads that stream large datasets. The 830M’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the GTX 1050 runs at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), further widening the gap.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The 830M has a base clock of 1082 MHz and a boost of 1150 MHz, while the GTX 1050 starts at 1354 MHz and boosts to 1455 MHz — a 25% and 26% advantage, respectively. The 830M’s TDP is 33 W, versus 75 W for the GTX 1050, and the suggested PSU for the GTX 1050 is 250 W, while the 830M has no such requirement. The 830M is an IGP (integrated graphics package) with no power connectors, while the GTX 1050 is a dual-slot card that also requires no external power connectors but has a physical length of 145 mm (5.7 inches) and height of 111 mm (4.4 inches).

The bus interface differs: the 830M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 1050 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the 830M, whereas the GTX 1050 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12, but the 830M is limited to feature level 11_0, while the GTX 1050 reaches 12_1. OpenGL is 4.6 for both, and Vulkan is 1.4 for both. The 830M was released on 2014-03-11, and the GTX 1050 on 2016-10-24. The 830M’s predecessor is GeForce 700M and its successor is GeForce 900M; the GTX 1050’s predecessor is GeForce 900 and its successor is GeForce 20.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 830M has an average benchmark score of 3,957, which is higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050’s average of 3,629. This is because the 830M’s average is based only on two Geekbench results (4,324 OpenCL and 3,590 Vulkan), while the GTX 1050 includes several low Passmark scores that lower its average.

Q: How does the GTX 1050 compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 1050 scores 15,233, which is 71.6% higher than the 830M’s 4,324. The deltaPct of -71.6% indicates the 830M is far behind, with the GTX 1050 delivering over three times the score.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The 830M has a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s using DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, while the GTX 1050 has 112.1 GB/s using GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The GTX 1050 offers roughly 7.8 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Both support DirectX 12, but the 830M is limited to feature level 11_0, while the GTX 1050 supports feature level 12_1. Vulkan is 1.4 for both, and OpenGL is 4.6 for both.

Q: What are the TDP and physical form factor differences?

A: The 830M has a TDP of 33 W and is an IGP, meaning it is designed for integrated use with no power connectors. The GTX 1050 has a TDP of 75 W, is a dual-slot card, also lacks power connectors, but suggests a 250 W PSU and has a length of 145 mm.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ROPs?

A: The GTX 1050 has 640 shading units and 32 ROPs, while the 830M has 256 shading units and 8 ROPs. The GTX 1050 also has 40 TMUs versus 16 TMUs on the 830M.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1050 wins decisively in every benchmark where the two are directly compared. Its OpenCL score of 15,233 is 3.5 times the 830M’s 4,324, and its Vulkan score of 8,995 is 2.5 times the 830M’s 3,590. This makes it the clear choice for any application that leverages GPGPU compute, modern graphics APIs, or games that require high pixel and texture throughput. Its 46.56 GPixel/s pixel rate and 58.20 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the 830M’s 9.200 GPixel/s and 18.40 GTexel/s, making it suitable for 1080p gaming at medium-to-high settings, though the data does not specify game-specific performance.

The 830M wins in the domain of power efficiency and physical integration. Its 33 W TDP is less than half the GTX 1050’s 75 W, and its IGP form factor means it can be soldered directly onto a motherboard without a dedicated slot or cooling solution. For ultraportable laptops where battery life and thermals are paramount, the 830M is the only practical option. Its 1,020 million transistors on 28 nm also make it cheaper to produce in low volumes, though pricing is not part of this analysis. The 830M’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 M420, scores nearly identically (3,956 vs. 3,957), confirming it sits at the bottom of the discrete GPU performance ladder, but that is acceptable for basic media playback and light 2D workloads. Conversely, the GTX 1050’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M, scores 3,616, showing that the GTX 1050’s average is depressed by its Passmark entries, but its peak Geekbench results are far above the 830M’s peak. For desktop users with a 250 W PSU and a dual-slot slot available, the GTX 1050 is the superior performer in every measured category.