GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design vs GeForce GTX 1060

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design is positioned at rank #66 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Balanced cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design

#19

Radeon RX 5600

MSRP: $229|Avg: $150

98%

#22

Radeon RX 7700

MSRP: $449|Avg: $399

94%

#56

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

207%

#58

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

188%

#59

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

188%

#63

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

171%

#64

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

169%

#66

GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

100%

#68

GeForce GTX 850M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $40

97%

#78

Radeon HD 8970M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $170

93%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 1060 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GTX 1060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 156.4% higher G3D Mark score and 50% more VRAM (6 GB vs 4 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design	GeForce GTX 1060
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-156.4%)	✅Leading raw performance (+156.4%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Pascal (2016−2021))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+50%)
Efficiency	Normal Efficiency	Normal Efficiency
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

The GeForce GTX 1060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $60 (vs $50), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 113.7% better value per dollar than the GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design.

Insight	GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design	GeForce GTX 1060
Cost Efficiency	❌Lower cost efficiency	✅Better overall value (+113.7%)
Upfront Cost	✅More affordable ($50)	⚠️Higher upfront cost ($60)

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design Benchmark Check

GeForce GTX 1060 Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design and GeForce GTX 1060

GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design

The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 3 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1152 MHz to 1417 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,925 points.

GeForce GTX 1060

The GeForce GTX 1060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 27 2016. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1607 MHz to 1733 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 180W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 10,064 points. Launch price was $599.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design scores 3,925 versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 10,064 — the GeForce GTX 1060 leads by 156.4%. The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design is built on Pascal while the GeForce GTX 1060 uses Pascal, both on 14 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 768 (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 2,560 (GeForce GTX 1060). Raw compute: 2.177 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 8.873 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 1060). Boost clocks: 1417 MHz vs 1733 MHz.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design	GeForce GTX 1060
G3D Mark Score	3,925	10,064+156%
Architecture	Pascal	Pascal
Process Node	14 nm	16 nm
Shading Units	768	2560+233%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.177 TFLOPS	8.873 TFLOPS+308%
Boost Clock	1417 MHz	1733 MHz+22%
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	48	160+233%
L1 Cache	288 KB	960 KB+233%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design	GeForce GTX 1060
Upscaling Tech	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)	FSR 2.1 (Compatible)
Frame Generation	FSR 3 (Compatible)	FSR 3 (Compatible)
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 1060 has 6 GB. The GeForce GTX 1060 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 80 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 192 GB/s (GeForce GTX 1060) — a 140% advantage for the GeForce GTX 1060. Bus width: 128-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 2 MB (GeForce GTX 1060) — the GeForce GTX 1060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design	GeForce GTX 1060
VRAM Capacity	4 GB	6 GB+50%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	80 GB/s	192 GB/s+140%
Bus Width	128-bit	192-bit+50%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 12 (GeForce GTX 1060). Vulkan: 1.3 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 4.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design	GeForce GTX 1060
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12
Vulkan	1.3	1.3
OpenGL	4.6+2%	4.5
Max Displays	4	4

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (6th Gen) (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs NVENC (Pascal) (GeForce GTX 1060). Decoder: NVDEC (3rd Gen) vs NVDEC (Pascal). Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9 (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs H.264,H.265/HEVC (GeForce GTX 1060).

Feature	GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design	GeForce GTX 1060
Encoder	NVENC (6th Gen)	NVENC (Pascal)
Decoder	NVDEC (3rd Gen)	NVDEC (Pascal)
Codecs	H.264,H.265 (HEVC),VP9	H.264,H.265/HEVC

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design draws 75W versus the GeForce GTX 1060's 180W — a 82.4% difference. The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 400W (GeForce GTX 1060). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 6-pin.

Feature	GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design	GeForce GTX 1060
TDP	75W-58%	180W
Recommended PSU	350W-13%	400W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	6-pin
Length	—	173mm
Height	—	111mm
Slots	0-100%	2
Temp (Load)	70°C	—
Perf/Watt	52.3	55.9+7%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design costs 16.7% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 78.5 (GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design) vs 167.7 (GeForce GTX 1060) — the GeForce GTX 1060 offers 113.6% better value. The GeForce GTX 1050 with Max-Q Design is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2016).