Geforce GTX 1050 / 1050 Ti Launch Thread ($109 / $139 - October 25th)

[Sweepr]

October 25th Update: Reviews

- 1050
TechPowerUp
Guru3D
ComputerBase
PurePC
PCWorld

- 1050 Ti
Overclocker's Club
Hot Hardware
TechPowerUp
Hardware Asylum
Hardware Canucks
LanOC
Techspot
cowcotland
Hexus
Guru3D
ComputerBase
Tom's Hardware
PCLab
PurePC
ComptoirduHardware
Eurogamer
TweakTown
PCWorld
Hardwareluxx
SweCLockers
PCGamesHardware

The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti based on full-fat GP107 GPU will feature 768 CUDA cores, 4GB GDDR5 memory and 75W TDP. According to leaked slide GeForce GTX 1050 Ti will cost 139 USD, which is 20 USD less than GTX 950 at launch.

The GTX 1050 non-Ti will feature 640 CUDA cores and 2GB GDDR5 memory, while TDP will be the same as Ti’s model — 75W. This card however, will cost 109 USD.

Both cards will launch on the same day, which is October 25th.

Now here are GeForce GTX 1050 series from 9 major AIBs:

• ASUS GTX 1050 (Ti) Mini
• EVGA GTX 1050 (Ti) SuperClocked
• GALAX GTX 1050 (Ti)
• GIGABYTE GTX 1050 (Ti)
• COLORFUL iGame GTX 1050 (Ti)
• INNO3D GTX 1050 (Ti) Compact
• MSI GeForce GTX 1050 (Ti)
• PALIT GeForce GTX 1050 (Ti)
• ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 (Ti) Mini

http://videocardz.com/63820/exclusive-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-to-cost-139-usd-gtx-1050-109-usd


Other leaks:

- Geforce GTX 1050 Ti

- Reference card is ~21 cm and doesn't require an extra 6-pin power connector
- Custom cards will include 6-pin
- Specifications: GP107-400, 768 SPs, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, base frequency 1354 MHz, turbo frequency 1468 MHz, 128-bit 4 GB GDDR5
- Frequencies range from 1354 MHz all the way to 1797 MHz
- Launch between October 18-25th

Die

GPU-Z

Geforce GTX 1050 Ti (Reference) - Back

Clocks

- 3DMark Fire Strike Ultra (4K)

- 3DMark Time Spy

- Geforce GTX 1050

Ashes of the Singularity Score

 

[severus]

I like the size of the Palit one, I wonder if they still sell stateside?

 

[RussianSensation]

Funny how all the cries that were raised when I ripped the GTX1050TI's originally rumoured $149 MSRP. Good to see someone at NV is checking market prices of RX 470/GTX1060. $139 is a lot better than $149, but even at $139, the 1050Ti may still be overpriced when the dust settles by the end of this month.

$185 MSI Gaming RX 470 4GB
$190 EVGA SC mini 1060 3GB
$200 MSI Gaming RX 480 4GB

If AIB 1050Ti cards have an additional $10-15 premiums, the value proposition for 1050Ti could be quickly eroded, especially so if the rumours of AMD dropping the MSRP of RX 470 to $169 come true.

Right now the RX 470 is beating GTX960 by 50% at 1080p. If GTX1050Ti is only 25% faster than GTX960, another $30 over that would bring a gamer a whopping 20% more performance. In contrast, 20% more performance by moving from GTX1070 to 1080 now costs $220. That's why I hate budget videocards. They have been and will continue to be a rip-off and a waste of $. I have a feeling GTX1050Ti will still not be worth its price once we analyze market prices of AIB 1050 and AIB RX 470/GTX1060/RX 480 cards. Then again, the NV loyalist customer base will buy GTX1050/1050Ti many times over anyway given how well the GTX750/750Ti/950/960 sold over the last 2-3 years. Compared to the 750Ti, R9 270 and 270X were 31% and 44% faster, respectively, and yet 750/750Ti marketing turds still outsold them by miles. That in itself assures that even if GTX1050/1050Ti have mediocre price/performance, the NV name will sell them regardless.

 

[Bacon1]

That in itself assures that even if GTX1050/1050Ti have mediocre price/performance, the NV name will sell them regardless.

And then they'll sell a new card to those same people in a year or two when the card stops performing at all. Great for shareholders

1050 looks to be slower than 960 which gets 2600 in timespy.

 

[RussianSensation]

And then they'll sell a new card to those same people in a year or two when the card stops performing at all. Great for shareholders

Yup, instead of spending $200 upfront for a proper 1080p card, let's spend $140, and then in 2 years another $120-140 just to get a card barely faster. Exact same scenario we saw repeated in another performance tier with GTX950/960 -> GTX1060 vs. AIB GTX970/R9 290/R9 290X. The lack of 6-pin power connector will be promoted as a positive. Why spend $17-25 on a 400-450 W PSU, $27-30 on a 550W PSU, $40 on a 750W PSU, when every 2 years you can just keep overpaying $20-40 for under-powered and overpriced low-end but "class leading perf/watt" NV GPUs? Cannot wait to read all the pro-GTX1050Ti posts proclaiming how a PC gamer is better off saving $40-50 by not buying an RX 470/480/GTX1060 despite the same posters trashing $225-250 Fury deals compared to a $380-400 GTX1070. The logic is uncanny -- it makes way more sense to spend hundreds of dollars more for 25-30% more performance, but on the low end, do whatever it takes to save $40-50 when that amount of money also will get a 25-30% GPU performance boost. But I guess you can sleep better at night you saved $5-10 in annual electricity costs.

 

[mohit9206]

Wait are these rumored prices or official prices? Because $139 is a great price and crushes Rx 460 4gb in price and performance. Considering these are rumored prices i don't believe the leaks. I still think it either will be $149 or $159 because this is Nvidia we are talking about.

 

[RussianSensation]

Wait are these rumored prices or official prices? Because $139 is a great price and crushes Rx 460 4gb in price and performance. Considering these are rumored prices i don't believe the leaks. I still think it either will be $149 or $159 because this is Nvidia we are talking about.

So if one card is overpriced and under-performing, the other card is automatically a good deal? $149-159 USD for a 1050Ti is too high with GTX1060 and RX 470 hovering in the $185-190 range in the US. A $150 low-end GPU not only starts to look bad against barely more expensive 470/480/1060 cards, but it also looks bad against a $399 PS4 Pro.

It's becoming clear that anyone on a budget who cannot afford RX470/1060/480 is better off going into the used market where R9 290/290X/R9 390/GTX970 can be purchased for not much more than a GTX1050Ti. GTX1050/1050Ti are aimed squarely at people who don't want to do the leg work of upgrading their PSU, searching for a good used GPU deal, or who aren't tech savvy and buy off-the-shelf OEM pre-built with garbage PSUs -- exact same target market that ate up all the obsolete and under-performing low-end trash such as GT610, 620, 630, 640, 710, 720, 730, 740, 650, 650Ti, 750, 750Ti, etc. Buying those cards is akin to buying low quality construction tools. You think you are saving $ and got a good deal, but in reality you keep throwing $50-150 every 2 years on something that has 0 staying power. The only possible exception are those who simply need an 4K HTPC card, but then the 1050Ti makes no sense as the 1050 fills that role. The other issue is the Kaby Lake i3 7100 will fulfill the needs of 99% of these target customers without even needing a low-end dGPU. Chances are the types of customers who will be buying RX 460/1050/1050Ti don't even have a CPU as fast as the i3-7100. The irony.

What's worse, tech savvy PC gamers in the US could have purchased an R9 280 with 3 AAA games for $165 2 years ago. I bet a GTX1050Ti will not be that much faster than a max overclocked R9 280. That's why the low-end AMD/NV GPUs are all overpriced and worth skipping. They are almost never a good deal until they go on sale for 40-50% off.

 

[Phynaz]

And then they'll sell a new card to those same people in a year or two when the card stops performing at all. Great for shareholders

1050 looks to be slower than 960 which gets 2600 in timespy.

We made it to the third post before we got a threadcrap.

 

[LTC8K6]

What's the point of crying about how cards are marketed and sold?

Not that I believe any of the hype about the marketing, mind you.

If Chevy can convince people to buy over Ford, too bad...

If customers aren't that smart, it's not Chevrolet's fault.

 

[Azix]

should be easy to figure out 1050ti perf vs 960. just need the clock speed and shader count. pascal and maxwell have been pretty close per tflop

 

[esquared]

Keep on topic or I will lock this thread.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[SPBHM]

really strong pricing, $139 with 4GBs is pretty good, also if it can OC near 2GHz I expect some very interesting results
the non TI version also looks close enough to $100 to be a winner, I might have to buy one;

 

[Azix]

based on the 1468 boost clock and shader count it should be just around 960 speed or a little slower. Would need to be boosting beyond rated spec to consistently beat 960, just like with the 1070 vs 980ti.

 

[tajoh111]

Funny how all the cries that were raised when I ripped the GTX1050TI's originally rumoured $149 MSRP. Good to see someone at NV is checking market prices of RX 470/GTX1060. $139 is a lot better than $149, but even at $139, the 1050Ti may still be overpriced when the dust settles by the end of this month.

$185 MSI Gaming RX 470 4GB
$190 EVGA SC mini 1060 3GB
$200 MSI Gaming RX 480 4GB

If AIB 1050Ti cards have an additional $10-15 premiums, the value proposition for 1050Ti could be quickly eroded, especially so if the rumours of AMD dropping the MSRP of RX 470 to $169 come true.

Right now the RX 470 is beating GTX960 by 50% at 1080p. If GTX1050Ti is only 25% faster than GTX960, another $30 over that would bring a gamer a whopping 20% more performance. In contrast, 20% more performance by moving from GTX1070 to 1080 now costs $220. That's why I hate budget videocards. They have been and will continue to be a rip-off and a waste of $. I have a feeling GTX1050Ti will still not be worth its price once we analyze market prices of AIB 1050 and AIB RX 470/GTX1060/RX 480 cards. Then again, the NV loyalist customer base will buy GTX1050/1050Ti many times over anyway given how well the GTX750/750Ti/950/960 sold over the last 2-3 years. Compared to the 750Ti, R9 270 and 270X were 31% and 44% faster, respectively, and yet 750/750Ti marketing turds still outsold them by miles. That in itself assures that even if GTX1050/1050Ti have mediocre price/performance, the NV name will sell them regardless.

Your doing the math wrong with your example.

If the gtx 1050 ti is 25% faster

On that same chart, it would end up being 62.5% performance.

75%/62.5 = 1.2. RX470 is 20% faster

179/139 = 1.28% is 28% more expensive(and most rx 470 are not 179.

So the gtx 1050 ti provides superior price to performance and more importantly, doesn't have the dumb pricing of the AMD lineup.

I.E the gtx 1050 ti doesn't get cannibalized by cards in the upper tiers of its own cards. The pricing makes sense compared to the rest of its lineup.

Whoever priced AMD cards, need to get fired. They were idiots. Particularly for the rx460 series. When the street price of your cards fall 20 percent almost and without competition from the other side being present(which implies a complete lack of demand), you priced your card completely wrong.

Same chart rx460 to rx 470, rx470 is 63 % faster for 28% more money. Add in that this is the AMD brand with affords them less luxury with pricing and it is truly mind boggling that someone priced it this way.

 

[DaveSimmons]

$109 and 75w with no 6-pin will be a nice card for prebuilt systems where it's not always easy to add that $25 (after rebate) replacement PSU.

I might sneak one in to my desktop at work....

 

[jpiniero]

based on the 1468 boost clock and shader count it should be just around 960 speed or a little slower. Would need to be boosting beyond rated spec to consistently beat 960, just like with the 1070 vs 980ti.

Which is why I think nVidia priced it the way it is. The 470 is clearly much faster (most likely far more than 20% in most games, it'd be more like 30-40%) but $40 more and requires a power pin.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Despite all the usual FUD, would be a killer deal at 139.00 for the 950Ti. I suspect it will be more expensive than that though.

 

[tviceman]

based on the 1468 boost clock and shader count it should be just around 960 speed or a little slower. Would need to be boosting beyond rated spec to consistently beat 960, just like with the 1070 vs 980ti.

The cores have similar throughput, but GP107's ROPs are pushing more pixels due to the higher clock speed and there is also better memory compression with Pascal. It will be about 5-10% faster than gtx 960, never slower.

If it hits the $139 launch price, it will be a good deal vs. the competition and will round out the Pascal family quite nicely.

 

[dark zero]

Err... is well priced... but there is no fanless model. It will be a perfect budget card BTW.

Waiting for the fanless GT 1040.

 

[Sweepr]

It's official!

NVIDIA announces GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GeForce GTX 1050

This tiny card showcased below is a reference GTX 1050 design. As far as I know, this design will not be sold by AIBs, since GTX 1050 series are mostly custom cards. In fact, it doesn’t seem like NVIDIA is planning to sell GTX 1050 Founders Edition either, it would probably defeat the purpose of cheap GTX 10 card anyway.

Both GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and GTX 1050 are based on Pascal GP107 GPU. The GTX 1050 Ti card ships with 768 CUDA cores and 4GB GDDR5 memory, the latter features 640 CUDA cores and 2GB GDDR5 memory. Probably the biggest news as of yesterday is the price of these cards. NVIDIA GTX 1050 Ti will be sold for 139 USD, while GTX 1050 will cost you 109 USD. I don’t think there will be a problem finding cards at this price, but don’t forget those are just NVIDIA’s suggested retail prices.

GeForce GTX 1050 series will be available for purchase starting from October 25th.

http://videocardz.com/63832/nvidia-announces-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-and-geforce-gtx-1050

 

[Sweepr]

So GTX 1050 (non Ti) does 65 FPS @ Gears of War 4 1080p Medium.

RX 460 Nitro OC does 52.8 FPS on average.

 

[whm1974]

So GTX 1050 (non Ti) does 65 FPS @ Gears of War 4 1080p Medium.

RX 460 Nitro OC does 52.8 FPS on average.

Not bad for a $109 card.

 

[antihelten]

So GTX 1050 (non Ti) does 65 FPS @ Gears of War 4 1080p Medium.

RX 460 Nitro OC does 52.8 FPS on average.

That test was done without the game ready drivers from AMD "we used the most current Radeon driver, 16.9.2. As this article was being prepared for publication, AMD pinged me to say that new Radeon 16.10.1 drivers will be released “very shortly” with optimizations for Gears of War 4". Although there is of course some debate about whether or not the new drivers have any significant impact on performance.

Meanwhile the RX 460 Nitro does 82.5 FPS in DOTA 2 with max settings (21% faster than 1050) and 71.2 FPS in Overwatch with ultra settings (13% faster than 1050 running at high settings).

 

[Glo.]

If it does not require 6 pin connector, and costs 139$ that is huge deal for people who want to build as fast computers in as small thermal envelope.

 

[LTC8K6]

That test was done without the game ready drivers from AMD "we used the most current Radeon driver, 16.9.2. As this article was being prepared for publication, AMD pinged me to say that new Radeon 16.10.1 drivers will be released “very shortly” with optimizations for Gears of War 4". Although there is of course some debate about whether or not the new drivers have any significant impact on performance.

Meanwhile the RX 460 Nitro does 82.5 FPS in DOTA 2 with max settings (21% faster than 1050) and 71.2 FPS in Overwatch with ultra settings (13% faster than 1050 running at high settings).

Seems odd...the 950 2gb card is beating the Nitro 460 4gb card in both of those at your links...so the 1050 should at least be very close, and the Ti a little out front.