What do you think AMD's response to GTX 1050 and GTX 1050 Ti will be?

[StrangerGuy]

Forgetting about the rest of your wall of text usual gibberish, I wonder the point of the above remark?...Users who buy 460/470 cards are not going to be interested in free-sync monitors unless they already have one, besides which the sync range is far to high to be of any benefit to the low FPS on the smaller cards.

You continue to try justifying the purchase of AMD budget cards with the purchase of free-sync monitors with the card purchase. To be frank, if I had extra money for a monitor, I would be using it for a better card.

Exactly, virtually nobody is going to care about freesync in the low end segment. While we are at AMD fantasyland why not also continue the usual "TDP doesn't matter" rhetoric even when the market has proved that wrong over and over.

 

[SpaceBeer]

We have to wait to see GP107 performance, but given the fact their configuration is almost the same as in 750Ti and 950, with 20-30% higher clocks, it's easy to estimate their performance. So I expect 1050 to be similar (little bit faster) to RX 460. It also means that full P11 (as in WX4100) with 1.2-1.3 GHz boost clocks would be between 1050 and 1050Ti. It also means that 28CU P10 (as in WX5100) would be faster (~20%) than 1050Ti. So we might have similar scenario like ~2 years ago when AMD had 260-260X-265-270-270X and nVidia 750-750Ti-760 in the same price (performance) range. AMD competed with 750Ti offering little bit cheaper and slower 260X, and bit faster and more expensive 265.

Either way, I would really like to see new cards filling the gap between RX 460 and RX470. One is to slow to justify my upgrade from 260X (and enjoy Deus EX:MD), and the other one is still to expensive in my country. So I hope chips used in WX 4100 and/or WX 5100 will find their place in RX cards

 

[R0H1T]

An unlocked P11 => 460(x) or 465 as the case maybe but they'll definitely need better stepping &/or binning.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Exactly, virtually nobody is going to care about freesync in the low end segment. While we are at AMD fantasyland why not also continue the usual "TDP doesn't matter" rhetoric even when the market has proved that wrong over and over.

Yea, it's amazing. There is an entire thread about the great new polaris efficiency without a single threadcrap from the usual suspects claiming power consumption doesn't matter, but any time nVidia efficiency is pointed out, we are told to replace our light bulbs instead of considering gpu efficiency.

 

[mohit9206]

AMD needs an RX465 4GB with 1024 shaders at $139 to battle the 1050Ti.
While at it also launch an RX450 with 640 shaders for $79 for the ultra budget gamers in developing countries. RX450 with its hd7770 level performance at 50W will still be faster than Intergreted graphics.
RX450 1GB-$69
RX450 2GB-$79
RX460 2GB-$89
RX460 4GB-$109
RX465 4GB-$139
RX470 4GB-$169
RX480 4GB/470 8GB-$199

 

[AtenRa]

A full Polaris 11 will not be faster than GTX 1050Ti, thus it cannot compete at the same price of $139 .

But they can have the following,

RX 460 2GB at $79
RX 460 4GB at $99

and full P11 (RX 465) 4GB at $119 to compete against GTX1050 2GB ($109)

Also if the 470D rumors are true, they will completely cover the $99 to $300 segment offering lower priced/higher performance or more ram at the same price segments as the competition.

 

[SpaceBeer]

I would rather see full P11 which is ~10$ cheaper than 1050Ti, than another cut of P10 which would be 20-30$ more expensive. Similar as R7 360 and GTX 950, with a difference that now P10 would be closer when it comes to power consumption, H265 decoding, Fluidmotion, amdgpu(-pro) linux support, and other less important stuff And of course, custom models with 6-pin connector and boost clocks above 1300 MHz
And I don't which one is more likely since I think both will more affect AMDs sales of RX 460 and RX 470, than attract potential buyers of 1050(Ti). Plus, selling 230 mm^2 P10 card for ~160$ at this stage of 14nm process will hardly bring some decent profit

 

[cbn]

Based on the following info, maybe AMD will also make a lower voltage lower clock P10 without power connector.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/new-zen-microarchitecture-details.2465645/page-93#post-38366723

That's based on driver / bios EVV model data, the same code which calculates the correct default voltage for the ASIC, based on leakage.

Those value represent default voltage vs. frequency of a ASIC with medium leakage characteristic.

Shows pretty clearly the point where it starts going south. Ideally Ellesmere (Polaris 10) would not operate faster than ~1000MHz. I'd expect this was the frequency range originally (prior Pascal release) planned.

 

[USER8000]

Forgetting about the rest of your wall of text usual gibberish, I wonder the point of the above remark?...Users who buy 460/470 cards are not going to be interested in free-sync monitors unless they already have one, besides which the sync range is far to high to be of any benefit to the low FPS on the smaller cards.

You continue to try justifying the purchase of AMD budget cards with the purchase of free-sync monitors with the card purchase. To be frank, if I had extra money for a monitor, I would be using it for a better card.

Thats funny,I can only talk for the UK,but I know a few people with cards like a R9 380X(for example) who actually bought a monitor with FreeSync plus a few who even had Nvidia cards(!) . There are a few under £200 here,which are no more expensive(or a tiny premium) than many of the non-FreeSync ones so I see a few people hedging their bets in case they might buy an AMD card or if Nvidia starts supporting it in desktop cards at some point. In fact one of the budget £100 ones is the cheapest with DP.

Way to lower the bar. You better hope the 460 can beat a what, 2, maybe even 3 year old card. The real competition for the 460 will be the 1050/1050Ti.

In the UK the cheapest GTX950 was £120 delivered,and the cheapest RX460 was £100 delivered and was the same price as the GTX750TI. Considering the GTX750TI stocks were purchased at pre-BREXIT vote dollar prices too and the pound tanked nearly 20% after that the 2GB models were not that bad for the price but not the second coming of the 8800GT or HD4850.

Also,considering the GTX1050 is being released in November,not October like the GTX1050TI,that means the RX460 was released two months earlier. The RX460 is cheaper and came out two months before the equivalent Nvidia Pascal card.

Yet in the UK,the RRP for the GTX1050 is £115,or £15 more than the RX460. So basically it arrives two months after the RX460,and costs more. I would expect it to be a better card especially since the RX460 uses a cut down Polaris 11.

Plus I have a GTX960 - stop lying. The GTX950 was released in late August 2015,ie,just over a year ago and using your absurd lack of logic the GTX950 could barely match an R9 270X which was based on an HD7870 released three and a half years ago:

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_950_SSC/images/perfrel_1920.gif

Oh wait,I assume you never criticised the GTX950 right??

Edit to post.

These cards, especially the 1050Ti nicely fill the gap between the 460 and 470/480/1060. I just hope the efficiency and frequency range of the other Pascal cards is not compromised by being on the Samsung 14nm process instead of TSMC 16nm. At 139.00 the 1050Ti would seem like a very attractive entry level 1080p gaming card.

Also I love how you were saying how great the GTX1050TI would be,when it probably looks to be slightly faster than a GTX960 4GB ,ie,more like a R9 380 4GB and cheaper and yet these have been out since last year. The GTX960 2GB and R9 285 2GB were released nearly two years ago.

Both matched the performance of older cards like the R9 280 and GTX760 or were slightly quicker.

Yet,you go and criticise the RX460 being cheaper and matching a graphics card from last year??

I was not overly enthused about the RX460 either,but neither am I for the GTX1050 or GTX1050TI.It might 10% better than a GTX960 - yes I am going to buy one right now.

NOT.

You seem to just be overly negative about anything AMD does whether its graphics cards,CPUs,anything dude.

Anyway,continued onwards unabated.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Thats funny,I can only talk for the UK,but I know a few people with cards like a R9 380X(for example) who actually bought a monitor with FreeSync plus a few who even had Nvidia cards(!) . There are a few under £200 here,which are no more expensive(or a tiny premium) than many of the non-FreeSync ones so I see a few people hedging their bets in case they might buy an AMD card or if Nvidia starts supporting it in desktop cards at some point. In fact one of the budget £100 ones is the cheapest with DP.






In the UK the cheapest GTX950 was £120 delivered,and the cheapest RX460 was £100 delivered and was the same price as the GTX750TI. Considering the GTX750TI stocks were purchased at pre-BREXIT vote dollar prices too and the pound tanked nearly 20% after that the 2GB models were not that bad for the price but not the second coming of the 8800GT or HD4850.

Also,considering the GTX1050 is being released in November,not October like the GTX1050TI,that means the RX460 was released two months earlier. The RX460 is cheaper and came out two months before the equivalent Nvidia Pascal card.

Yet in the UK,the RRP for the GTX1050 is £115,or £15 more than the RX460. So basically it arrives two months after the RX460,and costs more. I would expect it to be a better card especially since the RX460 uses a cut down Polaris 11.

Plus I have a GTX960 - stop lying. The GTX950 was released in late August 2015,ie,just over a year ago and using your absurd lack of logic the GTX950 could barely match an R9 270X which was based on an HD7870 released three and a half years ago:

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_950_SSC/images/perfrel_1920.gif

Oh wait,I assume you never criticised the GTX950 right??

Edit to post.



Also I love how you were saying how great the GTX1050TI would be,when it probably looks to be slightly faster than a GTX960 4GB ,ie,more like a R9 380 4GB and cheaper and yet these have been out since last year. The GTX960 2GB and R9 285 2GB were released nearly two years ago.

Both matched the performance of older cards like the R9 280 and GTX760 or were slightly quicker.

Yet,you go and criticise the RX460 being cheaper and matching a graphics card from last year??

I was not overly enthused about the RX460 either,but neither am I for the GTX1050 or GTX1050TI.It might 10% better than a GTX960 - yes I am going to buy one right now.

NOT.

You seem to just be overly negative about anything AMD does whether its graphics cards,CPUs,anything dude.

Anyway,continued onwards unabated.

When I talked about beating a 2 or 3 year old card I was referring to to 750Ti which another poster claimed was the competitor for the 460. I just looked it up and in fact it was released in Feb of 2014, almost 3 years ago. As for the rest of your rant, you are basically putting words in my mouth and calling me a liar for things I never said, specifically the fact that you have a 960 proves I am a liar. Dont really see any logical connection there at all. And if you think a card being released a month or two behind its competitor makes it a bad card, then AMD's answer to the 1070/1080 surely will be horrible cards, because they will be a year late, if they can match the performance at all.

And for your information, I currently have an AMD gpu.

 

[AtenRa]

@frozentundra123456

RX 460 replaced the R7 260/X/360/X and not the R9 370.
260/X/360/X and GTX 750/Ti are in the same segment, GTX 950 is not.

Actually, GTX 1060 3GB IS the GTX 950 replacement.

RX 460 had price competition from GTX 950 only in the states due to AR, everywhere else in the world the RX 460 was competing against the GTX 750/Ti.

 

[mohit9206]

Let's be honest AMD crapped the bed by releasing a cut down laptop graphics card for $140 for the desktop market.
I'm surprised not many reviewers bashed AMD for that. Instead they praised it for being efficient and performing better than 750ti.
I mean do any of the reviewers even take a their job seriously nowadays? Or is it all just promotional articles disguised as reviews?

 

[sontin]

Polaris 11 was and is a DoA product. It is slow und needs too much power. There are no laptops with it or better it is vaporware for the notebook market.

A GTX950 is more efficient than the RX 460. I cant believe that such a product got positive reviews.

/edit: The response to GP106 is the killing of Polaris 11: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Nvidi...ich-zur-Radeon-RX470-1211291/galerie/2655096/

Comparing a $169 card to a $139 makes more sense for AMD than a $129 card to a $139 one. :lol:

 

[USER8000]

When I talked about beating a 2 or 3 year old card I was referring to to 750Ti which another poster claimed was the competitor for the 460. I just looked it up and in fact it was released in Feb of 2014, almost 3 years ago. As for the rest of your rant, you are basically putting words in my mouth and calling me a liar for things I never said, specifically the fact that you have a 960 proves I am a liar. Dont really see any logical connection there at all. And if you think a card being released a month or two behind its competitor makes it a bad card, then AMD's answer to the 1070/1080 surely will be horrible cards, because they will be a year late, if they can match the performance at all.

And for your information, I currently have an AMD gpu.

So let me get this straight,you are getting annoyed since the RX460 came in at the same price-point as the GTX750TI but was generally faster. Then you say "but the GTX750TI has been out for years!". Then you ignore the fact the GTX1050 is coming two months later and is more expensive than the RX460. I would certainly expect it to be faster taking that it to consideration. In the UK at least 10% to 15% faster if the cards are similar FPS/pound.

Then you sing the praises of the GTX1050TI which is coming nearly two years later than the GTX960 and looks to be marginally faster(or similar speed),and cheaper.

So why are you not saying the GTX960/R9 285/R9 380 have been out for years too?

So how is that any different from the RX460 replacing the GTX750TI at the same price and being faster,and matches the GTX950 whilst being cheaper.

These are your words not mine:

These cards, especially the 1050Ti nicely fill the gap between the 460 and 470/480/1060. I just hope the efficiency and frequency range of the other Pascal cards is not compromised by being on the Samsung 14nm process instead of TSMC 16nm. At 139.00 the 1050Ti would seem like a very attractive entry level 1080p gaming card.

You know very well 28NM was extended for years,so that level of performance at under £200 has been around for years. You need to apply it to both companies.

Sorry,but I found the RX460 "meh" since it was a slightly cheaper GTX950. The GTX1050TI looks like a cheaper GTX960/R9 380 at £139. We had R9 380X cards for just over £150 a few months ago and GTX960 and R9 380 cards for like £120 to £130 months ago.

I am not understanding your negativity for the RX460 and the enthusiasm you have for the GTX1050TI.

They are both meh. My GTX960 can get pushed in recent games quite a bit. So its starting to hit the point the performance will be more and more of a limitation.

You and a few others were moaning about FreeSync yet,some of those FreeSync monitors are the cheapest with DP at £100 in the UK. I know people with Nvidia cards who bought the FreeSync monitors just because even the other specs are decent. Can't you even realise in many countries those FreeSync monitors have replaced non-FreeSync ones at almost the same price?? There are a few 120HZ/144HZ ones under £200 which are among the cheapest with that functionality in the UK.

Unless you get a special offer deal,the GSync monitors are much more expensive comparing to equivalent models with FreeSync. I would love a GSync monitor as I could keep my card longer(especially since card prices will probably skyrocket next year for us in the UK),yet you are talking £50 to £60 at the lowest end. That is a massive premium on a £200 monitor. Some are even £100(!!) and OcUK then knocked off £40.

It might different in this country,but FreeSync has never had the level of hostility like I see here - primarily because most of us feel it will also push down GSync pricing over time too,which I want. But anyway,its not going to change anything,so we can just agree to disagree.

 

[antihelten]

AMD's response:

AMD drops prices on the Radeon RX 460 and RX 470

 

[USER8000]

AMD's response:

AMD drops prices on the Radeon RX 460 and RX 470

The cycle continues - hopefully the GTX1050TI pricing will also go down a bit if the RX470 drops down in price.

 

[sontin]

Why should the price of the GTX1050TI go down? It will start at $139 and offers up to 50% more performance than a RX 460 for $129.

There is a reason why AMD has killed Polaris 11 with this announcement.

 

[USER8000]

Why should the price of the GTX1050TI go down? It will start at $139 and offers up to 50% more performance than a RX 460 for $129.

There is a reason why AMD has killed Polaris 11 with this announcement.

Sorry,but it starts at £139 onwards in the UK. The GTX1050 starts at £115.

In the UK the RX460 starts at £99 onwards and has been for a while. The GTX1050 is 15% more expensive and the GTX1050TI is 40% more expensive. RX470 cards start at £180 for non-reference ones - the price drop means it will start at £165 to £170.

So at this point you are looking at a £30 difference for a card which is 40% to 50% faster than my card:

https://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_470_STRIX_OC/images/perfrel_1920_1080.png

At this point why would I want to spend almost the same for a GTX1050TI to replace my GTX960 when it will hardly be an upgrade??

I even have a mini-ITX rig and a sub 500W PSU,ie,it will pretty much run a GTX1060 or RX480 fine.

GTX960 and R9 285/R9 380 cards have been as low as £120 in the UK,with R9 380X cards even sometimes dropping down to nearly £150.

If you don't want to get an AMD card,you can get a GTX1060 3GB for not much more either. Its one thing to say the RX460 was meh,but then to get all excited about the GTX1050 and GTX1050TI - they seem meh too. I pay more for a set of cards come six weeks to two months later,which costs more here,but maybe faster. Revolutionary.

Plus,goodness grief a price drop on an older cards makes it fail - so what about all the price drops on Nvidia cards too?? You realise that Nvidia EOLed the GTX960 2GB and replaced it at the same price with the 4GB model?? Was that because the GTX960 2GB was fail? No it was because AMD introduced the R9 380 in 2GB and 4GB models which were price more keenly(at least here),so they responded. Thats the last 15 years of graphics cards - 9/10 each company price adjusts when a new product launches. Look back a few years ago,each one was offering more and more games to outdo each other,etc.

This is why my GTX960 4GB cost less than a GTX960 2GB three months before and was cheaper than a R9 380 4GB.

Edit to post.

Now if the GTX1050 were to start at £99 I might be more enthusiastic about it.

But £115,not really.

 

[AtenRa]

AMD Wants You to Choose Radeon RX 470 Over the GTX 1050 Ti, For Now

https://www.techpowerup.com/227091/...se-radeon-rx-470-over-the-gtx-1050-ti-for-now

Excellent, that is why we Consumers need competition.

 

[PhonakV30]

Oh, it Is hot!

 

[antihelten]

AMD Wants You to Choose Radeon RX 470 Over the GTX 1050 Ti, For Now

https://www.techpowerup.com/227091/...se-radeon-rx-470-over-the-gtx-1050-ti-for-now

For some reason Techpowerup didn't include the slide with the footnotes:

Note the final sentence of every footnote: "Test results are not average, not typical, and may vary"

 

[AtenRa]

For some reason Techpowerup didn't include the slide with the footnotes:

Note the final sentence of every footnote: "Test results are not average, not typical, and may vary"

You expecting the GTX 1050Ti to do better than 470 on average ??

 

[antihelten]

You expecting the GTX 1050Ti to do better than 470 on average ??

Nope, I'm expecting it to be about 20% slower on average, but what does my expectations have to do with anything?

 

[AtenRa]

Nope, I'm expecting it to be about 20% slower on average, but what does my expectations have to do with anything?

Just asking to see what you believe the performance will be.

 

[Glo.]

Why should the price of the GTX1050TI go down? It will start at $139 and offers up to 50% more performance than a RX 460 for $129.

There is a reason why AMD has killed Polaris 11 with this announcement.

Are you sure? Where are the reviews? I have not seen any.

There is a reason why the GPU is priced at 139$, regardless of people will try to spin it on this forum.