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

[Arachnotronic]

The 1050Ti is priced about 20% too high.

Then don't buy it. Somebody who wants the best performance that they can get without needing a PSU with a 6-pin connector will probably be very happy with the 1050 Ti.

There is more to what makes a product desirable, especially at the very low end of the market, than raw perf/$ in 3D gaming applications. 1050 Ti isn't a product for everyone, certainly not for enthusiasts, but it has its place.

 

[Glo.]

GTX 1050 Ti has the price/performance nieche in mainstream market.

However, after a lot of thinking I decided to make up my mind finally and go for low power/high performance place, so I picked quad core/low power CPU from Intel, and... XFX RX 470 4 GB coupled with 1080p IPS 23'' LG monitor with Freesync.

Overall cost for whole setup in my country with new case, motherboard, SSD, CPU cooler, CPU, GPU, PSU, keyboard(Stelseeries Apex M800!), mouse, RAM is 6500 PLN.

Why not taking the GTX 1050 Ti? Because it is only 100 PLN difference here between GTX 1050 Ti and cheapest RX 470 4 GB. And I gain 40% of performance, especially in Overwatch(68 FPS in 1080p/Epic for GTX 1050 Ti, and 90-94 FPS for RX 470 4 GB)

 

[USER8000]

Then don't buy it. Somebody who wants the best performance that they can get without needing a PSU with a 6-pin connector will probably be very happy with the 1050 Ti.

There is more to what makes a product desirable, especially at the very low end of the market, than raw perf/$ in 3D gaming applications. 1050 Ti isn't a product for everyone, certainly not for enthusiasts, but it has its place.

The RX470 is not an enthusiast card. Even JPR and other companies consider the $300 market as kind of the start of enthusiast cards. $300 and below is mainstream gaming cards. The GTX960 was a $200 card and the RX470 is priced below it. Unless you are saying the GTX960 is an enthusiast card??

The GTX760 was $250 - was that an enthusiast card??

The GTX660 was $190 - was that an enthusiast card??

Then go back to cards like the GTX460 at $199.

You might want to look at the naming - 60 series cards are traditionally the midrange gaming cards from Nvidia.

All of them had one or two PCI-E power connectors.

Not sure why you think all these cards only appealed to enthusiasts.

I know plenty of gamers who have had cards like that and pretty much the same with the AMD equivalents. Most of them are not computer enthusiasts.

 

[swilli89]

Then don't buy it.

So that's your response to me discussing how almost equally priced cards share a 40% performance delta? "Then don't buy it"? I've recommended the 1050, 1070, and 1080 at all of their respective price points as they are clear winners in their brackets. You can try to sit there and say they don't compete, but in the real world gamers are not going to be sitting there looking at a $20 difference as a deal breaker when you're getting tangibly better performance, which is SO rare in GPUs, typically have to spend $100+ to get a noticeable bump in performance. Even in AMD press release they are targeting the 1050Ti with the 470 so not sure what the thinking is claiming they don't compete. RX470 and 1050Ti most definitely compete for the same buyers.

Somebody who wants the best performance that they can get without needing a PSU with a 6-pin connector will probably be very happy with the 1050 Ti.

If you want to add this qualifier then its just about the only case I could recommend a 1050ti. Pretty much any 300watt PSU can handle a 6-pin card. So sure if someone posts that they have an old HP oem and need the best they can get without power then the 1050ti may indeed be the answer for them.

There is more to what makes a product desirable, especially at the very low end of the market, than raw perf/$ in 3D gaming applications. 1050 Ti isn't a product for everyone, certainly not for enthusiasts, but it has its place.

No way, quite the opposite is true. When consumers purchase lower priced commodities their price sensitivity generally increases. Perf/$ ABSOLUTELY matters on the low end. Its why they are shopping in the low end in the first place! I've never heard anyone with any amount of economic knowledge or background claim that in the lower-end markets "bang for buck" matters less. Its the Titan X-P buyers that actually don't care about price, not guys trying to put a build together for $400. A Skylake i3 and 470 are easily the undisputed value/performance king and I recommend no less to any friend that's building a setup.

 

[Phynaz]

RX470 and 1050Ti most definitely compete for the same buyers.

I need you to point out to me the buyer that is buying a RX470 for a system that doesn't support PCIe power cables.

Different power consumption classes = different market. I can just as easily say the RX460 is the competitor to the 1050ti, after all the 1050ti is only $30 more and gives 50% better performance.

You did say there's no way $20 is a deal breaker, right? So what's another 10?

 

[swilli89]

I need you to point out to me the buyer that is buying a RX470 for a system that doesn't support PCIe power cables.

Different power consumption classes = different market. I can just as easily say the RX460 is the competitor to the 1050ti, after all the 1050ti is only $30 more and gives 50% better performance.

You did say there's no way $20 is a deal breaker, right? So what's another 10?

I have a friend that has a Haswell i5 version of this who just upgraded to a 470: http://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/productdetails/inspiron-3650-desktop/fddnclot201b

Tons of OEM systems out there like the one above that could benefit greatly from an RX470.

RX460's can be had for $89. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...02228&cm_re=radeon_460-_-14-202-228-_-Product

Compare that to full size 1050Ti costing $150. You're talking about a 67% increase in cost. If you want to say that the majority of 460's are 100 that's still a 50% increase. I wouldn't go as far to say that an RX460 to 1050ti is the same as a 1050ti to an RX470. Full size 1050ti to RX470 is something like a 10-15% increase in cost at the very most. Depending on brand and model they may even cost the same.

You seem to be generalizing and thereby making a false equivalency argument. Again, for the vast majority of people out there that have a 300watt or better PSU the 470 is the value king at $~160.

AMD has made a very compelling offer to those that might be considering an upgrade in this price bracket. Gotta hand it to you though, "power consumption classes" is one I haven't heard of before. I will admit the 470 eats up more juice, but if they both fit under 95% of power supplies out there, then why is this being made the main point of contention?

I'm definitely not arguing against the GP107 chip. It is setup to be one of the most amazing mobile chips ever created and if I was buying a gaming laptop I would 100% be getting one with the 1050ti's chip inside. The chip itself performs very well itself given its tiny die footprint, the most glaring problem is again, nvidia has priced the 1050ti out of its value range. Don't forget that the quality 1050ti boards that can actually OC are exactly the same price as 470's and no amount of overclocking is going to erase a 40% deficit.

In discussing value cards, how could anyone recommend against the card that offers the most value? Low end 470's rule in performance/$, good ole bang for buck.

 

[Phynaz]

snip wall of text

RX460's can be had for $89. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...02228&cm_re=radeon_460-_-14-202-228-_-Product

A 2GB card in 2016? Really?? Cherry pick a price if you want to, but don't make yourself look silly.

 

[swilli89]

A 2GB card in 2016? Really?? Cherry pick a price if you want to, but don't make yourself look silly.

Perfect, I was hoping you'd go there. So like every 1050 available? I think you just made yourself look silly.

I see you highlighted a $10 difference in 460 models (which I already addressed, 1050ti still 40-50% costlier than 4gb 460) and ignored all my other points.

 

[Phynaz]

Ummm... I don't recall making a single post about the 1050, so I don't know what you're getting on about.

Would it make you feel better if I said the 2GB 1050 was silly in 2016, and only exists to make a price point?

After all, you posted about your concern that the 1060's 6GB is an issue. So your linking to a 2GB card to make a point calls the objectivity of your posts into question.

 

[swilli89]

Ummm... I don't recall making a single post about the 1050, so I don't know what you're getting on about.

Would it make you feel better if I said the 2GB 1050 was silly in 2016, and only exists to make a price point?

After all, you posted about your concern that the 1060's 6GB is an issue. So your linking to a 2GB card to make a point calls the objectivity of your posts into question.

Like I said, change the cost-benefit analysis to a 4GB $99 RX460. The 1050ti is still 50% costlier which is directly inline relative to its performance increase.

I agree with you though, 4GB is the minimum for 2016 and the 1050 and RX460 2GB edition are both dead on arrival.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Cant believe posters are still trying to push the 470 as a suitable card for an OEM system with a poor quality power supply and no six pin connector. It might work, but one isolated incident claiming that it works certainly does not prove it is a wise or viable long term solution for the overall market. Additionally, one has to ask why people buy OEM systems. In most cases, it is because they are not knowledgeable about computers or dont want to be bothered with building one. I expect the vast majority of people who buy/have OEM systems for gaming dont even know what a molex connector is, much less that you can use an adapter to jerry rig 2 of them to a six pin connector. The point of a slot powered card is simply to be able to plug and play. Open the case, push in the card and you are ready to go.

 

[Bacon1]

Cant believe posters are still trying to push the 470 as a suitable card for an OEM system with a poor quality power supply and no six pin connector.

I don't think people are pushing that at all. In fact most people are saying "Yes that is the one rare use case where a 1050 ti would work well", but it is still a poor value purchase overall. You are just adding cost to a poor machine purchase and leaving 40%+ performance on the table due to it.

 

[antihelten]

Well no one is buying reference 470 either, so why compare against it at all?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-Polaris-Hardware-261587/Tests/Radeon-RX-470-Test-Review-1203600/

Shows that the two 470s they tested can also be 15% difference in speed. So the ~ difference isn't 25% but still 40-50%.

I really don't think you understand the point I'm making here. Yes the difference can be 25% depending upon which models you compare (for instance the MSI 1050 Ti Gaming X vs. a reference 470 as done by TPU) and it can also be 40-50% again depending upon which models you compare. The review you linked only reinforces this point, as it shows that just like with the different 1050 Ti models, RX 470 models can also vary in performance by 10-15%.

As for why you would compare an aftermarket 1050 Ti to a reference 470, that is quite frankly an irrelevant question. At least it is irrelevant to ask me that question since I'm not the one doing it, the review sites out there are the ones doing it. So either you can try and ask them this (and get them to change their policy on this), or you can simply accept that they do it and then at least make sure to make note of whether reference models or factory OCed models are being used when comparing reviews.

On a slightly different note, looking at the review you linked and the benchmark numbers in it, I'm beginning to suspect that the RX 470 used by PCGH in the 1050 Ti isn't a reference model, but rather the ASUS Strix model. The fact that a lot of sites don't indicate what kind of model they are testing just makes this whole thing even more opaque.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I don't think people are pushing that at all. In fact most people are saying "Yes that is the one rare use case where a 1050 ti would work well", but it is still a poor value purchase overall. You are just adding cost to a poor machine purchase and leaving 40%+ performance on the table due to it.

It certainly is not a poor value if you already have a pre-built PC and decide to get into PC gaming. For 140.00 you can get decent entry level 1080p gaming as opposed to a complete new system or paying someone to upgrade the PSU and add a gpu. It can also be a pretty good value if you purchase a close out, refurb or used system and just add a card to it. As another poster already said, the members of this forum are not the market for this type of upgrade. But as shown by the 750Ti, there is a market for it. Not everyone wants to build a PC, order one from a gaming vendor, or upgrade both the PSU and gpu. They just want to stick a card in the system they have or go to the local big box store and buy something off the shelf and stick a card in it. They dont analyze fps to the nth degree, or worry about frame times, or future proofing, they just want quick and easy PC gaming and dont demand high levels of performance.

 

[Phynaz]

I don't think people are pushing that at all. In fact most people are saying "Yes that is the one rare use case where a 1050 ti would work well", but it is still a poor value purchase overall. You are just adding cost to a poor machine purchase and leaving 40%+ performance on the table due to it.

Are any major OEMs putting RX 470 into off the shelf PCs?

 

[Azix]

Are any major OEMs putting RX 470 into off the shelf PCs?

http://www.computerrefurb.net/desktops/dell-optiplex-3010-MT-i5-4gb-500gb-windows-10-pro-RX470

 

[alexruiz]

I think the GTX 1050 ti landed exactly where it had to land:
Close to the GTX 960 / R9 380 at a price cheaper than those.

In fact, it performs as what I had expected the RX 460 to do before launch, close to the R9 380. In my eyes, both the GTX 1050 and RX 460 missed the mark, they are barely better than GTX 950 / R9 270X.
Put the gtx 1050ti it at $120 - $130 and it would be a great card. At above $150, however, makes no sense.

Now, for the fallacy of power consumption and OEM machines.
- There are RX 460 cards without PCI-e power connector (Powercolor red dragon one example)
- The PSU bundled in newer OEM PCs WILL handle a RX 470 easily. It pains me to read that some folks in these forums believe a good Delta PSU won't power a RX 470. There is the inconvenience of connecting the molex to PCI-e, but that is a minor annoyance for ~40% more performance.
- Most OEM PCs have enough clearance for a RX 470. No, not a MSI Gaming X, but surely a XFX RS or a Gigabyte G1. Space is not an issue.
- If an OEM PC is that old that the PSU is smaller and won't handle a RX 470, that PC probably cannot benefit from an RX 470 either. That PC should be taking a GTX 1050 / RX 460 at most.

While I am an AMD fan, I think the green team got it right and the red team wrong. The RX 460 should NOT have landed where it did, the gtx 1050 ti landed where it had. The fact that the rX 470 is being discounted to fill the gap attests to this. Get the GTX 1050ti at $120, that is the card to get for entry builds (R9 380, R9 280X, GTX 770, GTX 680 performance as reference) At the $150 price that it is right now, however, makes no sense. Skip lunch for 3 days, save that money, get the RX 470, end of story.

 

[railven]

So that's your response to me discussing how almost equally priced cards share a 40% performance delta? "Then don't buy it"? I've recommended the 1050, 1070, and 1080 at all of their respective price points as they are clear winners in their brackets. You can try to sit there and say they don't compete, but in the real world gamers are not going to be sitting there looking at a $20 difference as a deal breaker when you're getting tangibly better performance, which is SO rare in GPUs, typically have to spend $100+ to get a noticeable bump in performance. Even in AMD press release they are targeting the 1050Ti with the 470 so not sure what the thinking is claiming they don't compete. RX470 and 1050Ti most definitely compete for the same buyers.

While I'd agree they compete, real world data has shown that your bold statement is just not true. I've seen it first hand people opting for the Nvidia product even if the performance was inferior to the AMD product simply because "Nvidia" and a comparable price.

Which is why I continue to get stumped that AMD would chase NV with a price cut when prior history shows, they'll still get outsold and by an inferior product that has higher margins for NV.

No way, quite the opposite is true. When consumers purchase lower priced commodities their price sensitivity generally increases. Perf/$ ABSOLUTELY matters on the low end. Its why they are shopping in the low end in the first place! I've never heard anyone with any amount of economic knowledge or background claim that in the lower-end markets "bang for buck" matters less. Its the Titan X-P buyers that actually don't care about price, not guys trying to put a build together for $400. A Skylake i3 and 470 are easily the undisputed value/performance king and I recommend no less to any friend that's building a setup.

This still simply not true. At least not from posts I've seen in a more general/mainstream forum. Branding > performance/price for the greater majority of buyers. Perf/$ only matters to those on tech forums who are more aware of it. At the store when someone is buying a GPU the salesman is going to push Nvidia harder (I've seen this so many times).

We can argue all we want about price / perf but sales numbers just don't back it up. AMD was still struggling to sell <$300 290X while NV was reporting revenue/sales records with $500+ 980s.


What we think/believe just isn't reflected in the real world. AMD would be in a much healthier position if more buyers actually cared for performance/$ - truth is, they don't.

 

[Bacon1]

It certainly is not a poor value if you already have a pre-built PC and decide to get into PC gaming. For 140.00 you can get decent entry level 1080p gaming as opposed to a complete new system or paying someone to upgrade the PSU and add a gpu. It can also be a pretty good value if you purchase a close out, refurb or used system and just add a card to it. As another poster already said, the members of this forum are not the market for this type of upgrade. But as shown by the 750Ti, there is a market for it. Not everyone wants to build a PC, order one from a gaming vendor, or upgrade both the PSU and gpu. They just want to stick a card in the system they have or go to the local big box store and buy something off the shelf and stick a card in it. They dont analyze fps to the nth degree, or worry about frame times, or future proofing, they just want quick and easy PC gaming and dont demand high levels of performance.

I never said people won't do it. I said it was a bad use of their (obviously) limited budget. They are losing 40%+ performance because they bought a limited machine (and probably overpaid for it too).

Look, Nvidia is going to outsell AMD regardless of what anyone says on any forum. People know the Nvidia branding. There is no need to push an inferior product to smart / informed buyers. Plenty of people will end up buying the 1050 ti over the 470 not because they had to, but because they'll wrongly thing the 1050 ti is faster based on name alone.

 

[USER8000]

What we think/believe just isn't reflected in the real world. AMD would be in a much healthier position if more buyers actually cared for performance/$ - truth is, they don't.

Yet many were quite happy to point out how the GTX970 was better price/performance than a R9 290X at launch or a GTX980TI was better price/performance over a Fury X or Fury Nano. So if Vega launches at worse price/performance than a GTX1080,then I expect nobody will ever mention it right since price/performance is not important.

I think the GTX 1050 ti landed exactly where it had to land:
Close to the GTX 960 / R9 380 at a price cheaper than those.

In fact, it performs as what I had expected the RX 460 to do before launch, close to the R9 380. In my eyes, both the GTX 1050 and RX 460 missed the mark, they are barely better than GTX 950 / R9 270X.
Put the gtx 1050ti it at $120 - $130 and it would be a great card. At above $150, however, makes no sense.

Now, for the fallacy of power consumption and OEM machines.
- There are RX 460 cards without PCI-e power connector (Powercolor red dragon one example)
- The PSU bundled in newer OEM PCs WILL handle a RX 470 easily. It pains me to read that some folks in these forums believe a good Delta PSU won't power a RX 470. There is the inconvenience of connecting the molex to PCI-e, but that is a minor annoyance for ~40% more performance.
- Most OEM PCs have enough clearance for a RX 470. No, not a MSI Gaming X, but surely a XFX RS or a Gigabyte G1. Space is not an issue.
- If an OEM PC is that old that the PSU is smaller and won't handle a RX 470, that PC probably cannot benefit from an RX 470 either. That PC should be taking a GTX 1050 / RX 460 at most.

While I am an AMD fan, I think the green team got it right and the red team wrong. The RX 460 should NOT have landed where it did, the gtx 1050 ti landed where it had. The fact that the rX 470 is being discounted to fill the gap attests to this. Get the GTX 1050ti at $120, that is the card to get for entry builds (R9 380, R9 280X, GTX 770, GTX 680 performance as reference) At the $150 price that it is right now, however, makes no sense. Skip lunch for 3 days, save that money, get the RX 470, end of story.

Exactly - many of them have half decent FSP/Delta OEM PSUs. This is why I have mates who bought cards like a GTX660,HD7870,GTX960,etc and they ran fine off the normal PSUs.

Valve used 450W group regulated units to power a Core i7 4770 and a Geforce Titan. So at this point it seems there is rife power supply inflation E-PEEN happening.

I had a 400W unit powering an overclocked Q6600 and an 8800GTS 512MB perfectly fine and the replacement card consumed as much power too.

The system was fine for nearly 5 years.

Now I have a massively powerful 450W unit. With a Core i7 3770 and a GTX960 it is under 200W at the wall.

People only have to look at the actual reviews - they are at wall figures on overclocked high end systems.

Once you equate that to a normal system and the actual 12V load,you will find plenty of systems are fine.

Another issue with older systems is graphics cards not being compatible with older motherboards and the fact is how many of these cards(or the RX460 for that matter) are low profile or single slot??

That alone limits their usage. You could get single slot and low profile GTX750TI cards.

And another thing - the GTX750TI drew less power than most of these newer cards and for some of the older Dells,HPs,etc they did not have fully wired PCI-E slots meaning they could not actually supply 75W!!

 

[Erenhardt]

@ up
Someone should give you a history lesson, but it is not the place.

But this is the other issue - many reviewers only had GTX960 2GB launch cards to compare the GTX1050TI 4GB cards to which probably were the blower type reference cards. So once you consider the fact that the GTX960 4GB cards are all AIB and running at higher clockspeeds,the only real thing the GTX1050TI 4GB has is a bit less power draw and perhaps improved DX12 performance.

This is the problem with most of the whole generation sadly. In some ways the GTX1070 is probably the best balance of a very meh set of launches.

Some reviews compare it to 4GB custom 960, which doesn't look pretty for the 1050ti. Sometimes 105ti is faster, but mostly it is a bit behind 960.

Really, they are milking us. This whole generation didn't bring us much performance increase in the respective price ranges. It probably was to be expected after a killer deals on hawaii and old GCN cards from clearence/retired mining rigs/etc which spoiled us a bit.

 

[tviceman]

The agendas are running wild in this thread now. It appears some people cannot accept different products cover different markets and that sometimes it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Anyways, Polaris is so far behind Pascal in perf/w now that it's become a running joke. Nearly everything AMD has released since Maxwell first came out has fared worse and worse in comparable efficiency than Fermi, and Fermi was the gold standard of bad.

 

[USER8000]

@ up
Someone should give you a history lesson, but it is not the place.



Some reviews compare it to 4GB custom 960, which doesn't look pretty for the 1050ti. Sometimes 105ti is faster, but mostly it is a bit behind 960.

Really, they are milking us. This whole generation didn't bring us much performance increase in the respective price ranges. It probably was to be expected after a killer deals on hawaii and old GCN cards from clearence/retired mining rigs/etc which spoiled us a bit.

I have one of those custom GTX960 4GB cards,so the GTX1050TI 4GB looks underwhelming and all this talking about its low power! Its low power! Its for those OEM rigs!!

Yet hilariously,I know plenty of people who are running GTX960 cards fine in such rigs and it wouldn't surprise me if people managed to get GTX970s running in some of them either. The fact there were millions of people buying GTX970 cards which all required dual six pin power connectors indicates that power consumption did not stop it being the most popular Nvidia card on Steam. Its more popular than the GTX960 and GTX750TI!

I find it hard to believe all of those owners have custom built rigs with mega PSUs and overclocked Core i7 CPUs in them.

Now apparently GTX970 levels of power consumption are so ginormous that by the metrics of some it would never be a success. R9 290X was pretty bad,but GTX970 levels are bad now??

Wait,what??

It seems what do companies like Valve know when they had no issues powering a Core i7 and a Geforce Titan off a 450W unit and a little tiny unit at that too.

It appears to me power supply E-PEEN is probably the bigger issue.

Edit to post.

A lot of the more modern Delta and FSP OEM units are solid from experience for some of the budget builds I done for mates. Had no problem powering a midrange card.

 

[ConsoleLover]

NO ONE i know, no one that buys from oem's, no one buying prebuild, no one money conscious, no one who wants the best performance for the buck cares at all about power consumption. If they are buying a new PC they'd buy it with a PSU that has a 6pin connector, if they plan on upgrading the gpu, they'd upgrade the PSU as well.

Most psu's over 400w, even lower cost ones have 6pin connectors. Only the ultra cheap Chinese ones who cost like $20 for 600W ones don't have 6pins.

No one is going to choose 30w less consumption over a 40% faster GPU, NO ONE! There is no one retarded enough to do such idiocy!

To me as an entry level buyer it doesn't make sense to spend $40 to $50 more, than is just too much. Even $30 is essentially a lot, but in cases where the performance is so much higher, it just doesn't make any sense to go for the cheaper option, when you know long term you are saving money.

If I don't plan on upgrading in the next 3 years, it would save me a ton of money to spend $20 to $30 now and get the RX 470 over the 1050ti, which has over 40% better performance, rather than being forced to upgrade year and a half later down the line with the 1050ti barely able to handle 1080p and medium resolutions.

Even now the 1050ti is consistently bellow 60fps at 1080p, consistently bellow 60fps, usually in the 40fps range, so a year from now with newer games that is most definitely going to go down to like 30fps and bellow. 30fps is playable(not a good experience), but bellow 30fps and you basically have stuttering and shit experience.

60fps is the norm for good gaming experience, 30fps is playable experience and bellow 30fps is just shit fest, means you need to upgrade and if you haven't you are just too low on money to afford new gpu. No one would choose to game at bellow 30fps if they had the option and it was affordable, so picking the 1050ti over the rx470 is like getting a turd, instead of ice cream.

Yeah sure, you might even get full by eating the turd and it will keep you going for a few days, but you are eating a turd.

 

[USER8000]

It wouldn't surprise me the GTX1050 is the more popular card though over the GTX1050TI. Even if you stick to Nvidia cards,the GTX1060 3GB is generally quicker and a better buy anyway,so you basically have two slightly more expensive cards(each with its pros and its cons over each other) that are faster. The GTX1050 2GB is quite close to the price of the GTX750 and GTX750TI though in the US,so I can see it doing quite well. Its close to the magical $99/£99 price-point. The RX460 is underwhelming as it is too cut down for its own good but if AMD drops the price it might be OK. The GTX1060 3GB and RX470 4GB are around the same price as the GTX960,so people like me looking at a replacement will be looking at those cards as a minimum.

The GTX1050TI is neither here nor there. Its not fast enough or nearly cheap enough to really make much sense. YMMV.