NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a split decision between these two NVIDIA mobile and desktop parts. The GTX 970M claims victory in 3 out of 10 head-to-head tests, while the GTX 1050 Ti wins 7. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

The GTX 970M's most dominant victory comes in the Vulkan compute test, where it scores 18,292 against the GTX 1050 Ti's 10,001. That is a 82.9% advantage, the largest delta in the entire comparison. This suggests the older Maxwell architecture retains a significant advantage in low-level API workloads. The GTX 970M also leads in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, scoring 472 versus 305, a 54.8% gap. Its third win is in Geekbench OpenCL, though by a much slimmer margin: 18,946 versus 18,129, a 4.5% edge.

The GTX 1050 Ti counters across the Passmark suite. Its biggest win is in the 2D graphics test, where it scores 651 against 381, a 41.5% advantage. That is a substantial gap, likely reflecting the newer display and memory architecture. In the DirectX 9 test, the GTX 1050 Ti scores 104 versus 99, a 4.8% lead. The DirectX 10 test shows 31 versus 28, a 9.7% edge. DirectX 11 results are 45 versus 42, a 6.7% advantage. DirectX 12 shows 26 versus 24, a 7.7% lead. The GTX 1050 Ti also wins the compute-oriented Passmark GPU Compute test, scoring 2,652 against 2,289, a 13.7% margin.

The most important aggregate result is the Passmark G3D score, which represents general 3D graphics performance. Here the GTX 1050 Ti scores 6,340 against the GTX 970M's 5,704, a 10% advantage. This is the flagship gaming metric, and the newer card holds a clear lead.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all tests in the database, the GTX 970M averages 4,628, while the GTX 1050 Ti averages 4,193. This is a 10.4% difference in the older card's favor, driven largely by its massive Vulkan and Steel Nomad wins. The percentile rankings are close: the GTX 970M sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 1050 Ti sits at the 25th.

The pattern is clear. The GTX 970M dominates in specific modern API workloads, particularly Vulkan and DX12, while the GTX 1050 Ti wins consistently across the older DirectX test suite and 2D performance. For users running legacy DirectX titles, the GTX 1050 Ti is the stronger choice. For Vulkan-centric applications, the GTX 970M is decisively ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The GTX 970M is built on Maxwell 2.0 using the GM204 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 1050 Ti uses the Pascal architecture with the GP107 chip, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This process shrink is significant: the GTX 970M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the GTX 1050 Ti packs 3,300 million transistors onto just 132 mm². The transistor density tells the story: 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter for the GTX 970M versus 25.0 million for the GTX 1050 Ti.

The GTX 970M has a larger memory configuration with 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 120.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1050 Ti has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 112.1 GB/s. The memory clock speeds differ as well: the GTX 970M runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, while the GTX 1050 Ti runs at 1752 MHz with 7 Gbps effective. The higher clock rate partially compensates for the narrower bus.

The compute configurations are notably different. The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The GTX 1050 Ti has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite the lower unit counts, the GTX 1050 Ti operates at much higher clocks: 1291 MHz base and 1392 MHz boost, versus 924 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost for the GTX 970M. The higher clocks close much of the gap in raw throughput.

The pixel rate is nearly identical: 49.82 GPixel/s for the GTX 970M versus 44.54 GPixel/s for the GTX 1050 Ti. The texture rate shows a similar pattern: 83.04 GTexel/s versus 66.82 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 2.657 TFLOPS for the GTX 970M and 2.138 TFLOPS for the GTX 1050 Ti. The GTX 1050 Ti also has a limited FP16 capability of 33.41 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, a feature the GTX 970M does not list.

The power profiles are distinct. The GTX 1050 Ti has a 75 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 970M's TDP is not recorded in the database, but as an MXM module, it draws power through the laptop's own power delivery system. The GTX 1050 Ti is a dual-slot card measuring 145 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the GTX 970M uses the MXM-B (3.0) form factor with a portable-device-dependent display output. The GTX 1050 Ti offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The GTX 1050 Ti connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 970M uses the MXM-B interface.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 970M is the choice for Vulkan-based applications. Its 82.9% lead in the Vulkan compute benchmark is the single largest margin in the comparison. It also holds a 54.8% advantage in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, indicating strong performance in modern DX12 titles. The OpenCL lead of 4.5% is smaller but still consistent. The GTX 970M's higher average benchmark score of 4,628 versus 4,193 reflects these strong showings in newer API tests.

The GTX 1050 Ti wins across the older DirectX suite. It leads in DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 tests by margins ranging from 4.8% to 9.7%. Its 41.5% lead in the 2D graphics test is the most decisive of all its wins. The Passmark G3D score, a general 3D performance metric, favors the GTX 1050 Ti by 10%. The GPU compute test also goes to the GTX 1050 Ti by 13.7%.

For gaming, the GTX 1050 Ti's higher G3D score and consistent DirectX wins make it the stronger candidate for mainstream titles, particularly those built on older DirectX versions. For compute-heavy workloads using Vulkan, the GTX 970M is the better option. The GTX 1050 Ti also benefits from being a desktop card with standard display outputs, while the GTX 970M is a mobile MXM module.

The GTX 1050 Ti has a lower TDP at 75 W, which is notable for systems where power draw is a concern. It also has a smaller die and more advanced 14 nm process, which contributes to its efficiency. The GTX 970M, by contrast, relies on its larger memory pool of 6 GB and higher bandwidth to maintain competitiveness in memory-intensive scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 970M averages 4,628 across all recorded benchmarks, while the GTX 1050 Ti averages 4,193.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the GTX 970M scores 18,292 against the GTX 1050 Ti's 10,001, a 82.9% advantage.

Q: Which card wins in Passmark G3D?

A: The GTX 1050 Ti scores 6,340, which is 10% ahead of the GTX 970M's 5,704.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The GTX 970M has 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 1050 Ti has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.1 GB/s.

Q: How do the pixel rates compare?

A: The GTX 970M has a pixel rate of 49.82 GPixel/s, while the GTX 1050 Ti has 44.54 GPixel/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, compared to 768 for the GTX 1050 Ti.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GTX 970M | GTX 1050 Ti |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Pascal |

| Chip | GM204 | GP107 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 924 MHz | 1291 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1392 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective | 1752 MHz, 7 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 120.3 GB/s | 112.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 768 |

| TMUs | 80 | 48 |

| ROPs | 48 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 49.82 GPixel/s | 44.54 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 83.04 GTexel/s | 66.82 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.657 TFLOPS | 2.138 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 33.41 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | Not listed | 75 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

| Dimensions | Not listed | 145 mm length, 111 mm height |

| Release Date | 2014-10-06 | 2016-10-24 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800M | GeForce 900 |

| Successor | GeForce 10 Mobile | GeForce 20 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 139 USD |