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

[Bacon1]

PCGames Hardware: 470 31% faster (only tests the full size 1050 Ti in three games, where it is on average 15% faster than the reference 1050 Ti, so the results are extrapolated from those)

PCGH shows the 470 as 51% faster on their site...

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Nvidi.../Tests/Review-Geforce-GTX-1050-Ti-4G-1211466/

Performance index @ 1080

470: 43.8
1050 ti: 29
460 4gb: 22.5

470 (51%) > 1050 Ti (28%) > 460 4gb.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Could somebody remind me again why we are comparing the $139 MSRP 1050 Ti to the $170 RX 470?

 

[railven]

Could somebody remind me again why we are comparing the $139 MSRP 1050 Ti to the $170 RX 470?

Similar price? I'd opt for the 470 over the 1050 Ti at that price difference. AMD saw the threat and responded as they normally do. Doubt it will help them, but it makes posts like these more common in forums.

But, end of the day "Nvidia"

 

[Arachnotronic]

Similar price? I'd opt for the 470 over the 1050 Ti at that price difference. AMD saw the threat and responded as they normally do. Doubt it will help them, but it makes posts like these more common in forums.

But, end of the day "Nvidia"

If a $30 delta is a similar price then RX 470 should of course be compared to GTX 1060 3GB

 

[railven]

If a $30 delta is a similar price then RX 470 should of course be compared to GTX 1060 3GB

Now we're at the cinema where you buy the popcorn but the lady says "for 35 cents more you can get a medium!" And you go, "okay" and then she goes "but for 25 cents more you can get the large." Haha.

 

[Bacon1]

If a $30 delta is a similar price then RX 470 should of course be compared to GTX 1060 3GB

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. Heck I even compared them in a previous post.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...139-october-25th.2489249/page-9#post-38538362

Problem with the 3GB 1060 is it is already limited by the 3GB of VRAM. There is a reason the 1050 ti was designed to have 4 not 3.

 

[Arachnotronic]

There is a reason the 1050 ti was designed to have 4 not 3.

Yeah, it's called a 128-bit memory bus

 

[mohit9206]

Not only are your numbers probably wrong unless you have super expensive power (show your math?).

But if you have the time to game 20 hours per week, you should really do yourself a favor and buy a higher end card and monitor. I mean take a week off gaming and you could easily make $200 or more.

To show just how wrong your numbers are...

100 watt difference (way more than we'd see between 1050 ti and 470) at 28 hours per week (more than your 20) would only cost $18 per year @ 12c/kwh. 21 hr/w @ 12c is only $13 per year.

Those aren't my numbers. It was from Guru3D article on this page.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1050_and_1050_ti_gaming_x_review,7.html

 

[krumme]

Now we're at the cinema where you buy the popcorn but the lady says "for 35 cents more you can get a medium!" And you go, "okay" and then she goes "but for 25 cents more you can get the large." Haha.

"What suit you best lady. Large it is."

 

[Bacon1]

Those aren't my numbers. It was from Guru3D article on this page.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1050_and_1050_ti_gaming_x_review,7.html

Ok, so .23 € /kwh or .25c USD which is double the avg US cost.

 

[rainy]

If a $30 delta is a similar price then RX 470 should of course be compared to GTX 1060 3GB

Of course, however you must remember that gap between them is significantly smaller than RX 470 vs GTX 1050 Ti.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X_3_GB/26.html

 

[LTC8K6]

Could somebody remind me again why we are comparing the $139 MSRP 1050 Ti to the $170 RX 470?

Seems like you ought not to have to lower the price of a card that is 30% or more faster than the card you think it's up against...

I personally see the 470 as a step above the 1050ti, and I have no problem paying more to get on that step.

I don't see these two cards as competitors.

It's almost as if the AMD 470 cards are being artificially pushed into a lower hierarchy bracket where they can shine.

 

[Bacon1]

Yeah, it's called a 128-bit memory bus

Yep so you have choices..


Weaker 1050 ti with 4GB of vram (high quality textures!) for ~$150-160

40-50% faster 470 with 4/8GB of VRAM (high quality textures!) for $10-20 more ($170-180)

50-65% faster with 1060 3GB of VRAM (sometimes lower textures) for $30-50 more ($190 - 210)

1060 3gb vs 1050 ti from here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-review

Which is basically their review:

The only fly in the ointment comes from the GTX 1060 3GB and, to a slightly lesser extent, the RX 470. Typically, moving to the next step up on the Nvidia ladder grants you an additional 60 per cent of performance for an additional 35 per cent cash outlay. In this respect, in pure performance terms, the GTX 1050 Ti doesn't quite hit the 1080p 'bang for the buck' sweet-spot - which was pretty much the same complaint we had with the RX 460.

 

[railven]

It's almost as if the AMD 470 cards are being artificially pushed into a lower hierarchy bracket where they can shine.

And for whatever reason AMD continues to do this which continues to propagate the "value brand" mantra.

It's almost like a double-edged sword. Got to lower your higher performing parts to stupid prices to even try to attract some buyers.

Just wait for the rebates and we're at <$150 RX 470's that will mysteriously still sell poorly versus 1050 Tis.

 

[Arachnotronic]

And for whatever reason AMD continues to do this which continues to propagate the "value brand" mantra.

It's almost like a double-edged sword. Got to lower your higher performing parts to stupid prices to even try to attract some buyers.

Just wait for the rebates and we're at <$150 RX 470's that will mysteriously still sell poorly versus 1050 Tis.

AMD is the value brand, so they might as well do the best job they can of being the value brand. Done right, store-brand soda can do relatively well, even if it can't go up against Coke/Pepsi in terms of sales/profits.

 

[railven]

AMD is the value brand, so they might as well do the best job they can of being the value brand. Done right, store-brand soda can do relatively well, even if it can't go up against Coke/Pepsi in terms of sales/profits.

The difference here is store brands don't come in at $0.95 to the Pepsi/Coke $1.25 and then discount their price when Pepsi has a clearance week. They come in at $0.50 and stay there.

As an AMD supporter, you can basically say to yourself "Oh, new AMD cards, I'll just wait a month or two for the price cuts/rebates/freebies." That's AMD just shooting itself in the foot.

 

[linkgoron]

As an AMD supporter, you can basically say to yourself "Oh, new AMD cards, I'll just wait a month or two for the price cuts/rebates/freebies." That's AMD just shooting itself in the foot.

You mean, something like this?

 

[railven]

You mean, something like this?

No.

 

[antihelten]

PCGH shows the 470 as 51% faster on their site...

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Nvidi.../Tests/Review-Geforce-GTX-1050-Ti-4G-1211466/

Performance index @ 1080

470: 43.8
1050 ti: 29
460 4gb: 22.5

470 (51%) > 1050 Ti (28%) > 460 4gb.

They show that the reference version is 51% faster (which I included under the category of small form factor versions), they also tested the MSI 1050 Ti Gaming X in 3 games and showed that it was on average 15% faster than the reference version. The three games tested were Overwatch (16% faster than reference), Skyrim (18% faster than reference) and Crysis 3 (13% faster than reference)

So if RX 470 is 51% faster than the reference version, then it will only be 31% faster than the MSI 1050 Ti Gaming X (1.51 / 1.15 = 1.31).

PCGH also wrote this:
"Dank ihrer trotz der Unkenrufe im Vorfeld vorhandenen Taktfreudigkeit - MSI und EVGA liefen im Test meist mit knapp 1.700 MHz - können frei boostende Partner-Karten ohne Probleme noch 10 bis 15 Prozent auf die Basis-Performance draufpacken."

Which roughly states that thanks to higher clock frequency from boosting, these AIB cards can add 10 to 15% performance on top of reference without problem.

 

[Bacon1]

So if RX 470 is 51% faster than the reference version, then it will only be 31% faster than the MSI 1050 Ti Gaming X (1.51 / 1.15 = 1.31).

But thats comparing AIB 1050 Ti vs Reference 470 then no?

 

[LTC8K6]

You mean, something like this?

Do those with Amazon pricing instead of third party pricing.

 

[antihelten]

But thats comparing AIB 1050 Ti vs Reference 470 then no?

Yes obviously, did you even read my post before you replied to it?

The entire point of that post was that the gap between the 1050 Ti and the RX 470 can be as little as 25% or as much as 50% depending upon which models are being compared.

People should to be mindful of this large variation when comparing reviews, and make sure to take note off the exact type of models being compared.

 

[Bacon1]

Yes obviously, did you even read my post before you replied to it?

The entire point of that post was that the gap between the 1050 Ti and the RX 470 can be as little as 25% or as much as 50% depending upon which models are being compared.

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%.

 

[linkgoron]

Do those with Amazon pricing instead of third party pricing.

While it is true that the Amazon pricing is better, did you notice that there was basically no stock until September (dotted line)?

 

[swilli89]

AMD is the value brand, so they might as well do the best job they can of being the value brand. Done right, store-brand soda can do relatively well, even if it can't go up against Coke/Pepsi in terms of sales/profits.

This is a crazy comparison. Just because you see it this way doesn't mean its the reality. I know people are trying to parrot this sentiment into actually being true but it's crazy.

Someone mentioned earlier the small profile 1050ti's perform worse. Well prices of the full-size 1050Ti are more like $150 and up.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007709 601273503

Seems like the best card for the very low end is the 1050 and the next logical step is the RX470. The 1050Ti is priced about 20% too high.