NVIDIA GeForce 830M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and NVIDIA GeForce 830M occupy different ends of the mobile graphics spectrum, separated not just by time but by fundamental design goals. The GTX 1050 Ti is a dedicated, dual-slot desktop card built for sustained gaming performance, while the 830M is a low-power, integrated-class mobile GPU from an earlier generation. The benchmark data confirms a massive performance gulf: the GTX 1050 Ti leads by 319.3% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 178.6% in Geekbench Vulkan. The verdict is clear: the GTX 1050 Ti is the only option for any serious 3D workload, while the 830M is relegated to basic display output and legacy tasks. Users with a desktop system should choose the GTX 1050 Ti without hesitation; users constrained to a notebook with the 830M should temper expectations to light, older titles only.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available, the GTX 1050 Ti wins both, and by substantial margins. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 18,129 for the GTX 1050 Ti dwarfs the 4,324 of the 830M, representing a 319.3% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 1050 Ti scores 10,001 against 3,590, a 178.6% lead. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the GTX 1050 Ti averages 4,193, while the 830M averages 3,957, a difference of 6% overall. The GTX 1050 Ti also ranks at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 24th percentile for the 830M, indicating both are below average but the GTX 1050 Ti is meaningfully stronger. For any user needing playable frame rates in modern titles, the GTX 1050 Ti is the only choice. The 830M is suitable only for office work, video playback, and very old or undemanding games, where its 33 W power draw and integrated form factor are acceptable trade-offs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The GTX 1050 Ti uses the GP107 chip built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process by Samsung. The 830M uses the GM108 chip based on the older Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process by TSMC. This node difference is significant: the Pascal part packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The Maxwell chip contains only 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 13.2M per mm². The newer process allows the GTX 1050 Ti to fit more than three times the transistors into less than double the area, directly enabling its higher core counts.

The core configuration reinforces the gap. The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The 830M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs — exactly one-third of the shading units and TMUs, and one-quarter of the ROPs. Clock speeds also favor the newer card: the GTX 1050 Ti runs at a base of 1291 MHz with a boost of 1392 MHz, versus 1082 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost for the 830M. The combination of more cores and higher clocks yields a theoretical FP32 throughput of 2.138 TFLOPS for the GTX 1050 Ti, versus just 588.8 GFLOPS for the 830M. The GTX 1050 Ti also supports FP16 at 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64), a feature the 830M lacks entirely.

Memory architecture is another major divider. The GTX 1050 Ti comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The 830M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 7.8x difference in memory bandwidth, which heavily impacts texture-heavy scenes and higher resolutions. The GTX 1050 Ti also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 830M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning the newer card can handle more advanced DX12 features. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data consists of two DirectX-agnostic compute and graphics tests. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 1050 Ti scores 18,129 against the 830M's 4,324. The delta of 319.3% is the single largest gap in the dataset, and it reflects the raw compute advantage of the Pascal chip. The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units and 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the 830M has only 256 shading units and 588.8 GFLOPS. OpenCL workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth will see an enormous uplift on the GTX 1050 Ti.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the GTX 1050 Ti scores 10,001 versus 3,590 for the 830M, a 178.6% lead. While still decisive, this margin is smaller than the OpenCL gap. Vulkan's lower-level API can be more efficient on constrained hardware, partially narrowing the relative difference. Still, the absolute scores show the GTX 1050 Ti delivering nearly three times the performance in this modern graphics API. The GTX 1050 Ti also has additional benchmark data points that the 830M lacks: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 305, a Geekbench Metal score of 7,834, and PassMark scores ranging from 26 in DirectX 12 to 104 in DirectX 9. The 830M has no corresponding scores, indicating it was not tested in those workloads, likely due to hardware limitations.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti has an average benchmark score of 4,193, which is 6% higher than the 830M's average of 3,957.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti offers 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the 830M provides 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti, built on a 14 nm process, has a transistor density of 25.0M per mm², versus 13.2M per mm² for the 830M on a 28 nm process.

Q: How does the FP32 compute performance compare?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti delivers 2.138 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is approximately 3.6 times the 588.8 GFLOPS of the 830M.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the GTX 1050 Ti and the 830M are listed as end-of-life production status.

Q: Which GPU supports more advanced DirectX 12 features?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the 830M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning the GTX 1050 Ti can use additional tier-1 features.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1050 Ti wins in every measured category, but the extent of its dominance varies. In compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, it is 319.3% faster, making it the clear choice for GPU-accelerated tasks like video encoding, physics simulations, or machine learning inference. In Vulkan-based games, it maintains a 178.6% lead, which translates to playable frame rates where the 830M would struggle. The GTX 1050 Ti also has the advantage in memory bandwidth (112.1 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s), which is critical for high-resolution textures and anti-aliasing. Its 4 GB frame buffer allows for larger texture packs and higher detail settings, while the 830M's 2 GB will quickly become a bottleneck. The GTX 1050 Ti's 32 ROPs ensure better fill-rate performance at high resolutions, with a pixel rate of 44.54 GPixel/s versus 9.200 GPixel/s for the 830M.

The 830M's only advantages are in power draw and physical footprint. It consumes 33 W versus 75 W for the GTX 1050 Ti, making it suitable for thin and light notebooks where battery life and heat are paramount. Its IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs indicate it is designed for soldered-on-board mobile use, not user upgrades. The 830M also has a much earlier release date of March 2014, making it a legacy component. In practice, the 830M is only viable for non-gaming tasks or very old titles that do not require modern GPU features. For anyone building or upgrading a desktop, the GTX 1050 Ti is the only rational pick.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | NVIDIA GeForce 830M |

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

| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,300 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 132 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1291 MHz | 1082 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1392 MHz | 1150 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 7 Gbps effective | 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 64 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 768 | 256 |

| TMUs | 48 | 16 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 44.54 GPixel/s | 9.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 66.82 GTexel/s | 18.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.138 TFLOPS | 588.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64) | None |

| TDP | 75 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

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

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

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Release Date | 2016-10-24 | 2014-03-11 |

| Launch MSRP | 139 USD | None |