GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs GeForce GTX 980 Ti: specs and benchmark comparison
Short verdict
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
Compare with AIRendering and compute
B +173.7%NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti leads in this scenario (up to 173.7% in comparable benchmarks).
No comparable benchmarks yet: gaming: rasterization, gaming: ray tracing, power efficiency.
Advantages
Only measured and rated values: a noticeable benchmark gap and specs where more is better.
Where GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is better2
Board power 175 W lower75 W (TDP) vs 250 W (TDP)
Launch price $510 lower$139 vs $649
Where GeForce GTX 980 Ti is better9
Blender Benchmark 2.90 173.7% lower96 s vs 262 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 143.2% lower308 s vs 750 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 162.8% lower195 s vs 514 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 106.5% lower368 s vs 760 s
Blender Benchmark 2.90 169.6% lower498 s vs 1,342 s
Blender Benchmark 3.4.0 162.2% faster560 samples/min vs 213 samples/min
Video memory 2 GB more6 GB vs 4 GB
Memory bus 256 bit more384 bit vs 128 bit
Memory bandwidth 224.5 GB/s more336.6 GB/s vs 112.1 GB/s
Benchmarks
Results are compared within one benchmark, one version and the same conditions.
- B ahead by 173.7%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti262.2 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti95.8 sPosition among tested models (27, CUDA)
B · 96A · 2620100200300400Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 173.7% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
262.2 s · community measurement, sample 65 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 65 submissions (8 outliers excluded), interquartile range 259.23–265.74; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-02-03; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
95.8 s · community measurement, sample 38 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 38 submissions (6 outliers excluded), interquartile range 93.94–99.12; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-06-01; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 143.2%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, classroom (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti750.3 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti308.5 sPosition among tested models (25, CUDA)
B · 308A · 7500200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 143.2% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
750.3 s · community measurement, sample 42 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 42 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 729.86–762.18; submissions 2020-09-04 to 2021-01-28; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
308.5 s · community measurement, sample 33 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 33 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 295.78–316.04; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 162.8%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti513.6 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti195.4 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 195A · 5140200400600Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 162.8% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
513.6 s · community measurement, sample 28 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 28 submissions (2 outliers excluded), interquartile range 507.94–520.93; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-26; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
195.4 s · community measurement, sample 30 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 30 submissions (4 outliers excluded), interquartile range 193.05–203.58; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 106.5%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, koro (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti760.2 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti368.1 sPosition among tested models (22, CUDA)
B · 368A · 7600200400600800Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 106.5% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
760.2 s · community measurement, sample 26 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 26 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 746.79–768.74; submissions 2020-09-02 to 2021-01-26; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
368.1 s · community measurement, sample 27 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 27 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 363.27–383.13; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 169.6%
Blender Benchmark 2.90
GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) · s, lower is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti1,342.2 sGeForce GTX 980 Ti497.8 sPosition among tested models (23, CUDA)
B · 498A · 1,34205001,0001,500Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, s. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 169.6% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
1,342.2 s · community measurement, sample 24 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 24 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 1328.71–1356.78; submissions 2020-09-03 to 2021-01-26; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
497.8 s · community measurement, sample 27 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 27 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 483.58–510.64; submissions 2020-09-06 to 2021-02-01; CUDA backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Render time of a single Cycles scene without synchronization. Median of submissions after filtering.
- B ahead by 162.2%
Blender Benchmark 3.4.0
GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) · samples/min, higher is better
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti213.5 samples/minGeForce GTX 980 Ti559.7 samples/minPosition among tested models (43, OptiX)
A · 213B · 56005,00010,00015,000Each dot is one model’s median in this benchmark. The scale starts at zero, samples/min. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is ahead by 162.2% in this benchmark.
About the measurement and source
- A · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
213.5 samples/min · community measurement, sample 20 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 20 submissions (1 outliers excluded), interquartile range 188.19–226.57; submissions 2022-12-18 to 2024-04-03; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
- B · NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti
559.7 samples/min · community measurement, sample 20 · November 14, 2026
Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation)
Median of 20 submissions (3 outliers excluded), interquartile range 520.75–576.54; submissions 2023-01-03 to 2023-03-19; OPTIX backend. Snapshot 2026-11-14.
difference = |A − B| ÷ the smaller value × 100%. The 5% noticeable threshold is a UX heuristic, not statistical significance.
Cycles render in Blender Benchmark. Median of the sum of samples per minute over three scenes after removing outliers.
Other comparable benchmarks (4)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 240.3 | 92.2 | B +160.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 246.7 | 94.2 | B +161.9% |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 736.9 | 303.8 | B +142.6% |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 224.2 | 545.1 | B +143.1% |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Reference results (93)
| Benchmark | A | B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 2,202.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, barbershop_interior (CUDA) | 1,980.4 | 1,009.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 244.6 | 94.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 239.3 | 92.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 262.1 | 109.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 246.2 | 115.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | 210.1 | 74.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 282 | 104.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 291.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 281 | 94.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, bmw27 (OPTIX) | 291 | 100.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 740.8 | 303.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, classroom (CUDA) | 714.7 | 299.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 724.1 | 295.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 765.4 | 291.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 713.6 | 296.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | 649.9 | 257.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 889.8 | 347.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 927.7 | 400.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, classroom (OPTIX) | 948.2 | 469 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 499.3 | 199.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 484.7 | 204.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 496.8 | 202.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 504.2 | 201.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 493.1 | 280.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | 497.5 | 243.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 528.7 | 214.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 566.2 | 222.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, fishy_cat (OPTIX) | 613.6 | 273.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, koro (CUDA) | 863.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, koro (CUDA) | 830.5 | 452.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, koro (CUDA) | 830.1 | 441.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, koro (CUDA) | 807.5 | 448.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (CUDA) | 760.2 | 704.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, koro (CUDA) | 773.5 | 432.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 635.9 | 218.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, koro (OPTIX) | 905.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,414.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,228.3 | 501.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,252.9 | 482.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,278.6 | 498.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,271.1 | 622.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | 1,168.2 | 424.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,443.6 | 504.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,483.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, pavillon_barcelona (OPTIX) | 1,577.2 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81GPU, victor (CUDA) | 14,116.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.81aGPU, victor (CUDA) | 9,729.6 | 1,256.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.82GPU, victor (CUDA) | 7,575 | 1,235.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.83GPU, victor (CUDA) | 8,373.1 | 1,105.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (CUDA) | 9,266.8 | 1,018.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, victor (CUDA) | 7,320 | 997.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.92GPU, victor (CUDA) | 6,327.4 | 1,290.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.93.1GPU, victor (CUDA) | 5,837.1 | 1,351.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90GPU, victor (OPTIX) | 3,441.1 | 898.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 261.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 226.7 | 597.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 229 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 218 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 275.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 218.6 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 262.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 279.4 | 706.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 235.7 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 238.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 252.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 273.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 303.3 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 277.8 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 232 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (CUDA) | 217.1 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 4.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 214.1 | 533 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 209.2 | 504.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 182.3 | 404.9 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 177.4 | 443 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.0.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 238 | 592.4 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 226.7 | 553.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.2.1GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 223.8 | 542.3 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 218.1 | 526.7 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.5.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 204 | 549 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 3.6.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 229.8 | 576.1 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 208.3 | 533.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 211 | 501.6 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 215.3 | 504.8 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 4.4.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 209 | 483.2 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 5.0.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 179.9 | — | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.1.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | 194.6 | 449.5 | reference |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, bmw27 (CUDA) | — | 104.5 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.90.1GPU, classroom (CUDA) | — | 339.9 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, fishy_cat (CUDA) | — | 233.4 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, koro (CUDA) | — | 433.8 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 2.91.2GPU, pavillon_barcelona (CUDA) | — | 553.6 | no pair |
| Blender Benchmark 5.3.0GPU, sum of scenes monster + junkshop + classroom (OptiX / HIP / oneAPI / Metal) | — | 189.4 | no pair |
Each benchmark version has its own scale: numbers are compared only within a row.
Specifications
| Specification | A · GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | B · GeForce GTX 980 Ti | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip | |||
| GPU chip | GP107-400-A1 | GM200-310-A1 | differs |
| Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell | differs |
| Shader unitsShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture. | 768 (CUDA cores) | 2,816 (CUDA cores) | not directly comparable |
| Clocks | |||
| Base clock | 1,291 MHz | 1,000 MHz | A: 291 MHz more |
| Boost clockClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit. | 1,392 MHz | 1,076 MHz | A: 316 MHz more |
| Memory | |||
| Video memory | 4 GB | 6 GB | B: 2 GB more |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 | equal |
| Memory bus | 128 bit | 384 bit | B: 256 bit more |
| Memory bandwidthExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently. | 112.1 GB/s | 336.6 GB/s | B: 224.5 GB/s more |
| Power and dimensions | |||
| Board powerTGP (NVIDIA) and TBP (AMD/Intel) are calculated differently; higher is not better. For laptops, the chip maker sets the range and the laptop maker picks the value, so the same chip behaves differently in different laptops. | 75 W (TDP) | 250 W (TDP) | B: 175 W higher |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data | no data for B |
Chip
GPU chip
AGP107-400-A1
BGM200-310-A1
differsArchitecture
APascal
BMaxwell
differsShader units
A768 (CUDA cores)
B2,816 (CUDA cores)
not directly comparableShader unit counts are comparable only within one architecture.
Clocks
Base clock
A1,291 MHz
B1,000 MHz
A: 291 MHz moreBoost clock
A1,392 MHz
B1,076 MHz
A: 316 MHz moreClocks of different architectures do not reflect performance directly. For laptop chips, the clock depends on the laptop’s power limit.
Memory
Video memory
A4 GB
B6 GB
B: 2 GB moreMemory type
AGDDR5
BGDDR5
equalMemory bus
A128 bit
B384 bit
B: 256 bit moreMemory bandwidth
A112.1 GB/s
B336.6 GB/s
B: 224.5 GB/s moreExcludes cache (Infinity Cache / L2), which affects effective bandwidth differently.
Power and dimensions
Board power
A75 W (TDP)
B250 W (TDP)
B: 175 W higherTGP (NVIDIA) and TBP (AMD/Intel) are calculated differently; higher is not better. For laptops, the chip maker sets the range and the laptop maker picks the value, so the same chip behaves differently in different laptops.
Interface
APCIe 3.0 x16
Bno data
no data for B
“More” does not always mean “better”: higher power draw or size is a system requirement, not an advantage (such bars are dimmed).
Compare with AI
An AI model reviews the specs and benchmarks of this pair and gives a plain-language verdict on who each model suits.
Questions and answers
How much video memory do NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti have?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti: 4 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti: 6 GB GDDR5, 384-bit bus.
Which is faster: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti or NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti leads in every scenario with comparable benchmarks: rendering and compute. This does not imply an advantage in tasks without benchmarks.
See also
Data sources (2)
- Wikipedia (English) — specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, specifications of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, release date and launch pricechecked November 14, 2026
- Blender Open Data (Blender Foundation) — benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.81, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.81a, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.82, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.83, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.90, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.91.2, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.92, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.93.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 2.90.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.0.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.2.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 3.6.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.3.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.4.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 4.5.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.1.1, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.2.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.0.0, benchmark Blender Benchmark 5.3.0checked November 14, 2026
How we compare: methodology. Where the data comes from: sources.