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

[swilli89]

@ up
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.

^^This time a million. This Pascal generation has been a bad generation for consumers. Titan-XP massively increased cost. 1080 brought with it new levels of performance but for worse perf/$. 1070 literally kept same performance as Fury X/980 but added $100, 1050(Ti) both come short in perf/$. The only actual valuable card nvidia has released in my opinion is the 1060 6gb which itself has crept up in price with many models over $250 and is the only tangible improvement of perf/$ compared to 28nm. What's funny is this is the only segment AMD aimed to compete it and its no coincidence that this is the only segment where nvidia offers improved value.

Race cars go fast, and video cards render frames. How many frames can you render a second for your investment? That's the question we as video card enthusiasts have been asking ourselves since the 90's. How many frames per second can I buy with my budget. FUD has start to creep around and claim branding is worth a damn or intangibles like "driver quality" and "support". These are tactics used by fanboys to argue against value.

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

Good points but I'd like to say that 1060 3gbs all mostly start at easily over $200+. Sorted by "best sellers" so none can claim I'm cherry picking here. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...odeId=1&bop=And&Order=BESTSELLING&PageSize=36

 

[Det0x]

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 in the face of Maxwell on has faired worse in comparable efficiency than Fermi, and Fermi was the gold standard of bad.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

 

[swilli89]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

You got that right, brother.

 

[tviceman]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

I can spout eupemisms and cliched analogies just like Confuscius, too! If you have something to say that isn't some sort of empty threat, enlighten this thread. If you're feelings are hurt because your team is getting clobbered as if this were an ongoing sports event, maybe you should hit the proverbial reset switch and detach your emotions from video cards.

Anyways, nothing I said in my previous post was incorrect. For people who have crap PSU's and aren't going to change that piece of hardware, $140 GTX 1050 TI is their best option. If people have PSU's that can accept additional loads beyond the PCIe slot and want to stay under $180, the RX 470 is probably the best option on the perf/$ scale. However, AMD's current gen parts are all considerably to massively less efficient than many of Nvidia's last gen parts: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1050_Gaming_X/28.html The gap ranges ranges from 30% to 80% in favor of Nvidia. The gap in efficiency between the two company's respective architectures hasn't been that bad since GTX 480 https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_480_Fermi/33.html. At least GTX 470 and 480 at least had the speed than the competition to make up for the efficiency.

Nvidia caught up with AMD when they released Kepler, passed them up with Maxwell, and shot past Maxwell with AMD seemingly caught in neutral. Volta is going to completely obliterate AMD in the notebook and low end space, while simultaneously allowing Nvidia to keep prices high with enthusiast cards. When there is only one company to get a real high end video card from for 6+ months at a time, this is what happens.

 

[happy medium]

^^This time a million. This Pascal generation has been a bad generation for consumers. Titan-XP massively increased cost. 1080 brought with it new levels of performance but for worse perf/$. 1070 literally kept same performance as Fury X/980 but added $100, 1050(Ti) both come short in perf/$. The only actual valuable card nvidia has released in my opinion is the 1060 6gb which itself has crept up in price with many models over $250 and is the only tangible improvement of perf/$ compared to 28nm. What's funny is this is the only segment AMD aimed to compete it and its no coincidence that this is the only segment where nvidia offers improved value.

Titan X = $1,100 / Titan XP = $1,200 and 50%+ faster
gtx980 = $550 / gtx1080 = $650 and 50%+ faster
gtx970 = $329 / gtx1070 = $385 and 50%+ faster
gtx960 = $249 / gtx1060 = $250 and 50%+ faster
don't seem to bad to me.

 

[Erenhardt]

Those are prices at release day of each GPU.
Take into consideration r9 290 for 200$ in late 2015, and suddenly we are backpedaling on the perf/$ front.

 

[swilli89]

Anyways, nothing I said in my previous post was incorrect. For people who have crap PSU's and aren't going to change that piece of hardware, $140 GTX 1050 TI is their best option. If people have GPU's that can accept additional loads beyond the PCIe slot and want to stay under $180, the RX 470 is probably the best option on the perf/$ scale. However, AMD's current gen parts are all considerably to massively less efficient than many of Nvidia's last gen parts: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1050_Gaming_X/28.html The gap ranges ranges from 30% to 80% in favor of Nvidia. The gap in efficiency between the two company's respective architectures hasn't been that bad since GTX 480 https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_480_Fermi/33.html.

Well not to nitpick but all of those $140 1050ti's are the small ones that perform worse. The card in the review you linked is sitting on Newegg for $164.99.

Regardless I wanted to touch on this efficiency thing that people are bringing up. What does it all actually mean? This card is "massively" more efficient you say. Indeed it may very well be. But what does that mean in terms of the almighty $?

From the few reviews I've looked at it appears the 470 uses about 60 watts more than the 1050Ti. The 1050Ti is no doubt an amazing performer for its power draw which is quite important in the mobile space. As I've said before, if I was buying a gaming laptop and with Zen APU's not out yet, I'd probably opt for a GP107 chip. However I digress..

So an RX470 uses 60 watts more than a 1050Ti. The average unit cost of electricity in the USA is 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. For our example lets say someone games 3 hours a day 5 days a week.

That's 60 hours a month, or 720 hours a year. At 60 watts this will be 43,200 watt hours.

At 12 cents per kw-hr the difference of operating an RX 470 compared to the extremely energy efficient 1050Ti is $5.61 per year.

God knows how many low-end gamers are either A. Living with parents who pay the utility bill anyways, or B. College or 20-something age that split utilities with multiple roommates. Does efficiency as it relates to our conversation of value really mean anything according to the above calculation?

So the caveats to recommending a 1050ti over an RX470 are:

• Must have very cheap OEM powersupply (this will be rare, all current Dell Inspirons, for example, have been shown to work fine with 470's.)
• Must refuse to spend $160 while $140+ is ok
• Must be concerned about $5 annual energy cost
• AND with all the above accept a 40% loss in performance.

 

[Bacon1]

If people have GPU's that can accept additional loads beyond the PCIe slot and want to stay under $180, the RX 470 is probably the best option on the perf/$ scale.

This is completely incorrect and just shows your bias.

 

[tviceman]

Well not to nitpick but all of those $140 1050ti's are the small ones that perform worse. The card in the review you linked is sitting on Newegg for $164.99.

Regardless I wanted to touch on this efficiency thing that people are bringing up. What does it all actually mean? This card is "massively" more efficient you say. Indeed it may very well be. But what does that mean in terms of the almighty $?

From the few reviews I've looked at it appears the 470 uses about 60 watts more than the 1050Ti. The 1050Ti is no doubt an amazing performer for its power draw which is quite important in the mobile space. As I've said before, if I was buying a gaming laptop and with Zen APU's not out yet, I'd probably opt for a GP107 chip. However I digress..

I'm not talking about electric bills. I am looking at the bigger picture, a part of which you agreed with when it comes to notebooks.

There has been a very obvious trend since Hawaii (or Tonga, whichever came first) and that it's taking AMD either more wattage AND/OR more transistors to compete with Nvidia. If and as the trend continues, how will AMD counter Nvidia when low margins become no margins? AMD can't just compete on price, they need to catch up from a technical perspective or completely cede the high end and focus on lean smaller GPU's <300mm2 like with the HD 4000 and 5000 series.

 

[tviceman]

This is completely incorrect and just shows your bias.

A joke, I assume?

 

[Sweepr]

A joke, I assume?

Oh, the irony.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

I'm not talking about electric bills. I am looking at the bigger picture, a part of which you agreed with when it comes to notebooks.

There has been a very obvious trend since Hawaii (or Tonga, whichever came first) and that it's taking AMD either more wattage AND/OR more transistors to compete with Nvidia. If and as the trend continues, how will AMD counter Nvidia when low margins become no margins? AMD can't just compete on price, they need to catch up from a technical perspective or completely cede the high end and focus on lean smaller GPU's <300mm2 like with the HD 4000 and 5000 series.

Wattage has nothing to do with AMD's margins, AMD's margins have no bearing on which card is a better buy, AMD's investors seem pretty confident right, they're is making their way into two upcoming consoles while having three being sold right now, Zen and Vega are getting closer, etc.

Whatever your opinions are, AMD is making a turnaround. They aren't in nearly as dire straits as they were around the Fury X release, not even close. If Zen is any level of success, they'll have secured a strong future for their products, and we'll be seeing great stuff like $200 1060 6GBs, $165 480 4GBs and $350 1070s for years to come, whether some people like it or not.

 

[nurturedhate]

Oh, the irony.

Great work clearly showing how the power difference is incredibly minimal at best. A whole 40w. That's 1/3 of a standard light bulb. Oh my lord. You sir are the real winner of this thread. Congrats on trying to show up AMD, but all you ended up doing was demonstrating for the thousandth time how minuscule the power difference truly is. You sir should be awarded a medal. Now go change a light bulb...

 

[Azix]

I'm not talking about electric bills. I am looking at the bigger picture, a part of which you agreed with when it comes to notebooks.

There has been a very obvious trend since Hawaii (or Tonga, whichever came first) and that it's taking AMD either more wattage AND/OR more transistors to compete with Nvidia. If and as the trend continues, how will AMD counter Nvidia when low margins become no margins? AMD can't just compete on price, they need to catch up from a technical perspective or completely cede the high end and focus on lean smaller GPU's <300mm2 like with the HD 4000 and 5000 series.

and somehow, on the technical side, amd is behind because.... power consumption is higher? You think a spaceship is less complex than a car because it uses more power? Come on.

AMD clearly can manage with high end GPUs. they made the 290x after the 7970, they made fury X after the 290x. Vega will be better than fury X and use similar or less power.

 

[tviceman]

and somehow, on the technical side, amd is behind because.... power consumption is higher? You think a spaceship is less complex than a car because it uses more power? Come on.

AMD clearly can manage with high end GPUs. they made the 290x after the 7970, they made fury X after the 290x. Vega will be better than fury X and use similar or less power.

Much more than power... die size, transistors, power budgets, and performance. But this isn't processing correctly with you... I thought we all learned about connecting dots and cause/effect back in grade school.

 

[StinkyPinky]

^^This time a million. This Pascal generation has been a bad generation for consumers. Titan-XP massively increased cost. 1080 brought with it new levels of performance but for worse perf/$. 1070 literally kept same performance as Fury X/980 but added $100, 1050(Ti) both come short in perf/$. The only actual valuable card nvidia has released in my opinion is the 1060 6gb which itself has crept up in price with many models over $250 and is the only tangible improvement of perf/$ compared to 28nm. What's funny is this is the only segment AMD aimed to compete it and its no coincidence that this is the only segment where nvidia offers improved value.

? All the benchmarks I've looked at the 1070 is clearly faster than the 980 and has twice the vram.

 

[Phynaz]

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

Ummm...You realize that's somebody else putting those cards in, not Dell? That doesn't qualify as OEM.

 

[Phynaz]

A joke, I assume?

He's in such a hurry to counter you that he doesn't even read your posts anymore.

 

[swilli89]

Ummm...You realize that's somebody else putting those cards in, not Dell? That doesn't qualify as OEM.

Uh... Which is EXACTLY relevant.

ANY OEM system that ships with an RX470 would OBVIOUSLY run fine as its a complete prebuilt system with a warranty covering all of its parts. The SOLE focus of this conversation has been which card would be best for gamers trying to upgrade an old OEM box. You do understand that right?

 

[USER8000]

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

Apparently Alienware plonked one into some of their laptops:

http://en.community.dell.com/dell-b...s-into-pax-with-first-ever-vr-ready-notebooks

They also have RX480 cards as options in some of their desktops:
http://www.dell.com/uk/p/alienware-area51-r2/pd?ref=PD_OC

Dell also has the RX470 as an official upgrade part on their website:

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/pro...l.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=A9199813

No GTX1060 for some reason.

Also,the XPS810 seems to only have RX480 or GTX1070 options:

http://www.dell.com/ca/p/xps-8910-se-desktop/pd?ref=PD_Family

Edit to post.

The HP Omen desktop line comes with a GTX750TI or a GTX960 in the base specification and the next upgrade above it is a RX480:
http://store.hp.com/us/en/mdp/desktops/hp-omen-desktop#!&Tab=vao

 

[Bacon1]

A joke, I assume?

Yes , saying anything positive about AMD and perf/price is crazy talk apparently

 

[Phynaz]

Apparently Alienware plonked one into some of their laptops:

http://en.community.dell.com/dell-b...s-into-pax-with-first-ever-vr-ready-notebooks

They also have RX480 cards as options in some of their desktops:
http://www.dell.com/uk/p/alienware-area51-r2/pd?ref=PD_OC

Dell also has the RX470 as an official upgrade part on their website:

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/pro...l.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=A9199813

No GTX1060 for some reason.

Also,the XPS810 seems to only have RX480 or GTX1070 options:

http://www.dell.com/ca/p/xps-8910-se-desktop/pd?ref=PD_Family

Edit to post.

The HP Omen desktop line comes with a GTX750TI or a GTX960 in the base specification and the next upgrade above it is a RX480:
http://store.hp.com/us/en/mdp/desktops/hp-omen-desktop#!&Tab=vao

Cool, thanks.

 

[Phynaz]

Uh... Which is EXACTLY relevant.

ANY OEM system that ships with an RX470 would OBVIOUSLY run fine as its a complete prebuilt system with a warranty covering all of its parts. The SOLE focus of this conversation has been which card would be best for gamers trying to upgrade an old OEM box. You do understand that right?

What are you on about again? I asked if any OEMs were using RX 470's. User8000 gave an answer, you just went off on another rant. It gets tiresome.

 

[tviceman]

Yes , saying anything positive about AMD and perf/price is crazy talk apparently

It's crazy when it's the only thing that matters.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Uh... Which is EXACTLY relevant.

ANY OEM system that ships with an RX470 would OBVIOUSLY run fine as its a complete prebuilt system with a warranty covering all of its parts. The SOLE focus of this conversation has been which card would be best for gamers trying to upgrade an old OEM box. You do understand that right?

So what percentage of OEM systems ship with RX 470 gpus? The vast majority of the small percentage that do, if not all of them, are special gaming or performance oriented models, like Alienware, Dell XPS and HP Omen. This is obviously not the kind of "OEM" system we are talking about with a 240 to 300 watt low quality power supply.