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

[mohit9206]

RX470 can use upto 150W so i wouldn't want to use it in a 300W PSU desktop. So people who need pcie powered cards for their 300W system of which there are thousands of (just read toms hardware graphics forum) and those who have a hard limit of $150 and those who would be perfectly happy with 1050Ti performance because they upgrading from something like 7750,gt640,etc would love this card. Also this $30 difference being spoken of is only in some countries, some other places the difference in larger than $50.

 

[coercitiv]

This is obviously not the kind of "OEM" system we are talking about with a 240 to 300 watt low quality power supply.

This OEM bar keeps getting lower and lower... now we are are at 240W low quality power supply. These people live with firecrackers under their roof and we debate what card should they ignite them with.

 

[Erenhardt]

RX470 can use upto 150W so i wouldn't want to use it in a 300W PSU desktop. .

Same here. I always fill a Cola bucket just little over the half at PizzaHut's. Some people go for the whole 1.0L, but that is reckless.

Threadcapping is not allowed.
Markfw900

 

[USER8000]

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.

The XP8910 is a high end system with a 460W PSU which is configured to run higher Core i7 chips too. Yes,it has a massive high end 460W PSU. It is configured to run a GTX1070 too.

The biggest PSU I had is the 450W unit in my current system - with a GTX960,a Core i7 3770,16GB of DDR3,and a few hard drives and SSDs,it barely consumes 200W at the wall. It only has Bronze effiency too - so that means the 12V line is being pushed much less than 200W.

This was a PSU that cost me,just over £30. I wanted to get the Seasonic G 360W but was not going to pay almost double for that.

I have had systems with a 400W PSU which lasted 5 years running an overclocked Q6600 and cards like a 8800GTS 512MB. This was a tiny Shuttle PSU BTW,and quite a lot of heat was vented right through it due to how small the system was.

I had Shuttles with 300W PSUs running reasonably decent cards,yes,300W flexATX PSUs,and the 250W ones before.

Valve was using a group regulated 450W SFX unit to run a high end Core i7 4770 and a Geforce Titan.

So if you think the RX470 consumes "way too much power" then why not get the GTX1060 3GB?? Its a similar class to the GTX960.

Funny how so many people I know in the realworld used GTX960 cards in these systems which would self implode according to experts like you. You have swallowed the PSU E-PEEN marketing hook,line and sinker.

The pricing of the GTX1050TI models reviewed is hilarious - the EVGA model tested by Hexus is £160 - you can get an RX470 4GB for £170 and a GTX1060 3GB for £180.

In some of the games the RX470(let alone the GTX1060) is 40% to 50% faster. So at this rate,you could even spend £35 on a PSU and you will still end up with better price/performance.

 

[USER8000]

I just had a look at the Steam hardware survey - the GTX970 and GTX960 have greater representation between them than the GTX750TI and GTX750. In fact it is double the percentage of surveyed Steam users.

So,for the average gamer who buys Nvidia cards for gaming,apparently having a six-pin or dual six-pin power connectors is not an impediment for them to buy them. It matches my own experiences of knowing people buying GTX960 and GTX970 cards. Most are not enthusiasts and most are not running high end custom computers . I find it hard to believe all the GTX960 and GTX970 owners are owning high end computers.

It also matches the fact plenty of people do prioritise performance too - the GTX960 and GTX970 are much faster than the GTX750 and GTX750TI. The same goes with the GTX1060 3GB and AMD equivalents. Even GTX970 cards which have been discounted to clear the last stocks??

Even a refurbished GTX970??

If someone thinks the RX470 is too power consuming then surely they should talk about the GTX1060 3GB which is generally more efficient in this scenario,too?? Both are not pefect but are far better cards than a GTX1050TI 4GB. This is a card barely faster than my GTX960 4GB from last year and even that can get pushed by newer games.

At least the GTX1050 is closer to the £99/$99 mark and is better than the AMD competition.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I just had a look at the Steam hardware survey - the GTX970 and GTX960 have greater representation between them than the GTX750TI and GTX750. In fact it is double the percentage of surveyed Steam users.

So,for the average gamer who buys Nvidia cards for gaming,apparently having a six-pin or dual six-pin power connectors is not an impediment for them to buy them. It matches my own experiences of knowing people buying GTX960 and GTX970 cards. Most are not enthusiasts and most are not running high end custom computers . I find it hard to believe all the GTX960 and GTX970 owners are owning high end computers.

It also matches the fact plenty of people do prioritise performance too - the GTX960 and GTX970 are much faster than the GTX750 and GTX750TI. The same goes with the GTX1060 3GB and AMD equivalents. Even GTX970 cards which have been discounted to clear the last stocks??

Even a refurbished GTX970??

If someone thinks the RX470 is too power consuming then surely they should talk about the GTX1060 3GB which is generally more efficient in this scenario,too?? Both are not pefect but are far better cards than a GTX1050TI 4GB. This is a card barely faster than my GTX960 4GB from last year and even that can get pushed by newer games.

At least the GTX1050 is closer to the £99/$99 mark and is better than the AMD competition.

Why am in not talking about the 1060 3gb? Because it still requires a six pin connector.

 

[redzo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDTnl66Yh90

What is the point in getting 40fps instead of 30fps?
How could someone choose this 1050ti and justify it instead of a plain 1050 or a 460, it totally blows my mind. You must be a real idiot in purchasing a 1050ti against a 1060 3gb or any other AMD equivalent.

I guess that nvidia learned a lot out of their gtx980 product placement: all buyers are plain sheep idiots. The gtx 980, worst price/performance king winner, getting a comeback at the low budget. Can't blame them(nvidia)because of this. They are pushing the same strategy at the very low budget. AMD deserves to drown in its own incompetence: this is the second time that they get fooled in this way.


Insulting other members is not allowed
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator

 

[LTC8K6]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDTnl66Yh90

What is the point in getting 40fps instead of 30fps?
How could someone choose this 1050ti and justify it instead of a plain 1050 or a 460, it totally blows my mind. You must be a real idiot in purchasing a 1050ti against a 1060 3gb or any other AMD equivalent.

I guess that nvidia learned a lot out of their gtx980 product placement: all buyers are plain sheep idiots. The gtx 980, worst price/performance king winner, getting a comeback at the low budget. Can't blame them(nvidia)because of this. They are pushing the same strategy at the very low budget. AMD deserves to drown in its own incompetence: this is the second time that they get fooled in this way.

I thought it was pretty clear. You can get a 1050Ti that doesn't need a power connector. I'm not sure why that is constantly being glossed over as if it doesn't matter.

 

[mohit9206]

If there's one thing going for 1050Ti is that its the fastest pcie power only graphics card in the world.
Former champions include the best selling cards such as HD7750(had the pleasure of owing one for 3 years on a crappy 350W PSU) and 750ti. Now technology has advanced so much that we can now enjoy GTX 680(195W, $499)/7970(250W,$549) level performance without any additional power besides pcie slot. That alone is why 1050Ti(75W,$139) deserves high praise for amazing achievement in power efficiency and performance.
So while the two Generations performance improvement from 750ti to 1050Ti (95%) is lower than compared to 780 to 1080(144%), 770 to 1070(156%), and 760 to 1060(132%), its still a great card for the price of $139(but not more than that).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDTnl66Yh90

What is the point in getting 40fps instead of 30fps?
How could someone choose this 1050ti and justify it instead of a plain 1050 or a 460, it totally blows my mind. You must be a real idiot in purchasing a 1050ti against a 1060 3gb or any other AMD equivalent.

I guess that nvidia learned a lot out of their gtx980 product placement: all buyers are plain sheep idiots. The gtx 980, worst price/performance king winner, getting a comeback at the low budget. Can't blame them(nvidia)because of this. They are pushing the same strategy at the very low budget. AMD deserves to drown in its own incompetence: this is the second time that they get fooled in this way.

Unlike the 980, the 1050Ti actually provides great price to performance % even beating the likes of gtx 970 and rx480 provided you buy the $140 card and not the more expensive rip off variants. Take a look at TPU performance summary chart yourself if you haven't. Any $139 model would probably sit at 110% acc to my estimate. The MSI gaming x model is obviously a rip off.

 

[Sweepr]

3DCenter launch analysis is out. GTX 1050 Ti delivers >67% better performance per watt than RX 460.

RX 470 33.3% faster at 1080p while using more than twice the power (58W vs 138W on average across different reviews) - 155-170€ vs 190-220€ so not far in terms of perf/$ either.

http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/lau...launch-analyse-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050-1050-t

 

[frozentundra123456]

If there's one thing going for 1050Ti is that its the fastest pcie power only graphics card in the world.
Former champions include the best selling cards such as HD7750(had the pleasure of owing one for 3 years on a crappy 350W PSU) and 750ti. Now technology has advanced so much that we can now enjoy GTX 680(195W, $499)/7970(250W,$549) level performance without any additional power besides pcie slot. That alone is why 1050Ti(75W,$139) deserves high praise for amazing achievement in power efficiency and performance.
So while the two Generations performance improvement from 750ti to 1050Ti (95%) is lower than compared to 780 to 1080(144%), 770 to 1070(156%), and 760 to 1060(132%), its still a great card for the price of $139(but not more than that).

Unlike the 980, the 1050Ti actually provides great price to performance % even beating the likes of gtx 970 and rx480 provided you buy the $140 card and not the more expensive rip off variants. Take a look at TPU performance summary chart yourself if you haven't. Any $139 model would probably sit at 110% acc to my estimate. The MSI gaming x model is obviously a rip off.

Very true. Despite the attempts to deny it, and spin it that the 470 is suitable for a cheap OEM system, there is a considerable market for PCI-E only powered cards, both from power use, and just the simplicity for a non-technical user of just plugging in the card with no adapters (if there are even enough extra molex connectors to use them) or any lingering doubt if the psu will be up to the job. For such a system, I would certainly buy a 1050Ti. OTOH, if you already have a psu with a six pin connector, feel comfortable changing the psu, or are building a system from scratch, you are probably better off to save up for a 470/480/1060.

 

[frozentundra123456]

3DCenter launch analysis is out. GTX 1050 Ti delivers >67% better performance per watt than RX 460.

RX 470 33.3% faster at 1080p while using more than twice the power (58W vs 138W on average across different reviews) - 155-170€ vs 190-220€ so not far in terms of perf/$ either.

http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/lau...launch-analyse-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050-1050-t

You must be looking at the 3D center performance index for that 33.3% figure, right? Not sure exactly how they derive that number, but it seems rather low.

The average % difference from the 14 tests in the chart above that is 38%, and if you throw out the one test that gave 125% (looks like an outlier) the difference is 39.4%. Obviously, the difference will change depending on the games and models of cards tested, but I think that 33% is the low end of what one can expect to see. However, the price difference is around 30%, (if you can find a 1050Ti at the 140.00 list) so even then it is not the terrible performance per dollar card that some are trying to portray it as.

 

[USER8000]

Why am in not talking about the 1060 3gb? Because it still requires a six pin connector.

No because you know very well a GTX960 or GTX1060 3GB would be fine in these systems,and even my system with a Core i7 is barely seeing 200W at the wall.

Having to use a card with a PCI-E power connector is not a big deal.

So why have so many of my mates with Dells and HPs bought GTX960 cards not bought GTX750TI cards?? Even the two mates I know who bought a GTX750TI bought this one:

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/66317-palit-geforce-gtx-750-ti-stormx-dual/

It uses a six pin PCI-E power connector. Plenty of GTX750TI cards had additional power connectors too.

This is what you want to conveniently ignore.

Why are people now pushing the importance of not having a PCI-E power connector just because they are getting overexcited by this card.

Most gamers on Steam don't agree - the GTX960 and GTX970 have outsold the GTX750TI and GTX750 by two to one and the GTX750TI and GTX750 were launched 11 months before the GTX960 and 8 months before the GTX970. The GTX960 and GTX950 between them have sold more than the GTX750TI and GTX750 which have been out for longer.

Now,are you honestly going to tell me all these gamers having a GTX950,GTX960 or GTX970 have some custom computer with a million watt PSU?

If you remove the integrated graphics entries and mobile graphics entries,of the the top desktop graphics cards listed on Steam,19 use a single or double PCI-E power connector and 5 are bus powered. Of the 5 bus powered cards,three are very low end cards.

Most gamers spending £100+ care about performance and not whether a card is bus powered or not it seems according to Steam.

People are spending more and more on graphics cards - JPR and Mercury Research seem to indicate this. Enthusiast sales alone doubled over the last year.

This is a £140 to £150 card against a significantly faster £170 to £180 cards and many of the cards review are £150 to £160. There is a saying in the UK,the cheap person pays twice.

I have a AIB GTX960 myself and that is being pushed by newer games,so now people are getting excited since they released a GTX960 MK2 with lower power consumption. Not even the other bloke in this thread with a GTX960 saw the point either.

At least the GTX1050 is close to the price of the GTX750TI,the GTX1050TI is another tier above. Not even the Techpowerup guy thought the GTX1050TI was worth it.

 

[Qwertilot]

Isn't this all a bit strange as an argument? Yes, there is a non trivial market for really low power GPUs, which the 750/ti, and then 950's without external power connectors attached addressed. NVidia are addressing it in this generation with these cards.

That they've kept doing so is very strong evidence that it is worth doing. They're not daft. Some people like this sort of thing - far from all through strictly requiring it - and they will buy them.

 

[USER8000]

Isn't this all a bit strange as an argument? Yes, there is a non trivial market for really low power GPUs, which the 750/ti, and then 950's without external power connectors attached addressed. NVidia are addressing it in this generation with these cards.

That they've kept doing so is very strong evidence that it is worth doing. They're not daft. Some people like this sort of thing - far from all through strictly requiring it - and they will buy them.

You mean on Steam,where the GTX970 and GTX960 have more than double the share of the GTX750TI and GTX750,and of the top 24 discrete cards,19 are not bus powered??

Nope,what people don't get is that the RX460,GTX1050 and GTX1050TI use GPUs made for laptops plonked into a desktop card. These are mobile GPUs first.The GP107 will look awesome in laptops IMHO.

Its why none of them barely improve in performance over older cards on the desktop. The GTX1050TI 4GB is barely faster than a GTX960 4GB which already sips power. I run mine in a small case,and now apparently 200W at the wall for the whole system if I run Crysis 3 is PSU destroying power consumption.

I think people have just had too long of thinking they need to buy a 600W PSU to run a GTX970 or even a GTX960. As I proved a few times before,even some of the high end prebuilt systems running a high end card,have under 500W PSUs. Valve probably has a clue.

You had the people argueing how the GTX960 was 10X better than a R9 380 since it could fit into OEM systems easier.

Now fast forward 2 years,and now the GTX1050TI is better than a GTX1060 3GB,since it can fit into OEM systems easier.

I never saw remotely this level of excitement about that bus powered HD7850 released a few years ago.

I find it a stranger argument that some are getting so overexcited by this card,they want to recommend getting a GTX1050TI over a GTX1060 3GB or a RX470 4GB.

Yet,so many people I know with said OEM systems,ended up getting cards like a GTX960 anyway.

Plus it wouldn't surprise me if people get the GTX1050TI and then it struggles in newer games,they ditch it and buy a GTX1060 of some sort anyway within a year.

As I mentioned JPR,etc indicate a shift upwards in gamers spending more on their cards anyway.

Maybe,Anandtech forums has far more people who only use high end and expensive bus powered cards in largish cases,so maybe I have not considered that angle,so probably for them they are jumping for joy so they might be getting annoyed with my less than enthusiastic reception for the card(did not realise it guys! sorry!).

 

[antihelten]

You must be looking at the 3D center performance index for that 33.3% figure, right? Not sure exactly how they derive that number, but it seems rather low.

3D centers performance index is basically heavily rounded to give nice number, and in this case is clearly lower than the real number (in other cases it's the other way around).

Basically the performance index shouldn't really be used for anything other than quick and dirty estimates.

The average % difference from the 14 tests in the chart above that is 38%, and if you throw out the one test that gave 125% (looks like an outlier) the difference is 39.4%. Obviously, the difference will change depending on the games and models of cards tested, but I think that 33% is the low end of what one can expect to see. However, the price difference is around 30%, (if you can find a 1050Ti at the 140.00 list) so even then it is not the terrible performance per dollar card that some are trying to portray it as.

It's worth noting that the large difference in results (from 25% up to 51%), isn't so much a case of outliers as it is a case of using a wide variety of different cards. Reference 1050 Ti and non-reference 1050 Ti cards can vary by as much as 15% in performance and the same more or less goes for the RX 470.

The site that got 25% used a non-reference factory overclocked dual fan 1050 Ti model and compared it to a reference RX 470, whilst at most of the other sites used single fan models running at reference clocks and compared them to non-reference RX 470 cards.

Question then becomes what is the right thing to do. Well seeing as factory overclocked non-reference RX 470 cards are available at basically the same price as reference RX 470 cards, there's really no reason to buy the reference model. On the 1050 Ti front there's a fair bit of difference though with single fan models being $140 and dual fan overclocked models being $150-170.

At these prices the non-reference RX 470 definitely wins out perf/$ wise. For there to be parity the single fan 1050 Ti models would have to drop down to roughly $120 and the factory overclocked dual fan models would have to drop down to about $135.

So I guess at this point, the question is if the lower power usage of the 1050 Ti is worth $20-35.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You mean on Steam,where the GTX970 and GTX960 have more than double the share of the GTX750TI and GTX750,and of the top 24 discrete cards,19 are not bus powered??

Nope,what people don't get is that the RX460,GTX1050 and GTX1050TI use GPUs made for laptops plonked into a desktop card. These are mobile GPUs first.The GP107 will look awesome in laptops IMHO.

Its why none of them barely improve in performance over older cards on the desktop. The GTX1050TI 4GB is barely faster than a GTX960 4GB which already sips power. I run mine in a small case,and now apparently 200W at the wall for the whole system if I run Crysis 3 is PSU destroying power consumption.

I think people have just had too long of thinking they need to buy a 600W PSU to run a GTX970 or even a GTX960. As I proved a few times before,even some of the high end prebuilt systems running a high end card,have under 500W PSUs. Valve probably has a clue.

You had the people argueing how the GTX960 was 10X better than a R9 380 since it could fit into OEM systems easier.

Now fast forward 2 years,and now the GTX1050TI is better than a GTX1060 3GB,since it can fit into OEM systems easier.

I never saw remotely this level of excitement about that bus powered HD7850 released a few years ago.

I find it a stranger argument that some are getting so overexcited by this card,they want to recommend getting a GTX1050TI over a GTX1060 3GB or a RX470 4GB.

Yet,so many people I know with said OEM systems,ended up getting cards like a GTX960 anyway.

Plus it wouldn't surprise me if people get the GTX1050TI and then it struggles in newer games,they ditch it and buy a GTX1060 of some sort anyway within a year.

As I mentioned JPR,etc indicate a shift upwards in gamers spending more on their cards anyway.

Maybe,Anandtech forums has far more people who only use high end and expensive bus powered cards in largish cases,so maybe I have not considered that angle,so probably for them they are jumping for joy so they might be getting annoyed with my less than enthusiastic reception for the card(did not realise it guys! sorry!).

You are still missing the point. Yes the 1050 Ti is only as fast or slightly faster than a 960. But the 960 requires a six pin connector. The last gen card for comparison is the 750Ti, because it did not require a six pin connector. I am on a phone so I am not going to try to look it up, but I know the 1050 Ti is at least 50%, and I think more like 60 or 70 percent faster than the 750 Ti--- at a very similar price to the 750 Ti at launch. And I an not "enthusiastic" about this card. I am simply saying there is a market for it, it fills that market, and is not a terrible value. Obviously, some more powerful cards with a six pin connector will be a better value, but one has to sacrifice some value in order to get the efficiency of a bus powered card, just like with the 750Ti. In contrast to what you claim, your steam hardware survey figures (If one accepts them as valid) actually show that there is a market for low powered cards. The 960 and 970 are two of the very most popular cards, the fact that the 750Ti is as close as it is actually shows there is such a market. I an done arguing with you about this issue. Obviously neither of us is going to change our opinion, so it is a waste of time. I really don't understand your determination to prove this market does not exist, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion, although I strongly disagree.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The 960 and 970 are two of the very most popular cards, the fact that the 750Ti is as close as it is actually shows there is such a market.

I agree. I think that the 1050 and 1050 ti serve a particular market. It may not be for everyone, and I'm certain that there is both the "NV Premium", as well as the "no PCI-E power premium" on those cards, but they are a viable market. If they weren't, NV wouldn't produce them. I mean, they made a 1060 3GB model too, there must be a market there as well. Even if it's not a mainstream favorite among enthusiasts such as those people on these forums.

 

[crisium]

I hope we get single slot soon. Need a new small HDMI 2.0 card.

 

[LTC8K6]

I hope we get single slot soon. Need a new small HDMI 2.0 card.

The ZOTAC mini 1050 and mini 1050Ti are pretty small, but still spill over into a second slot with the cooler and housing.

 

[Blue_Max]

Waiting with baited breath for a 1050/TI in glorious low profile format! <3

 

[RussianSensation]

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

Any GPUs from $50-$1000 can be compared on a price/performance curve as long as it makes logical sense. Are you implying someone cross-shopping a $139-149 GPU isn't going to consider spending $20-30 more for a $169 GPU? Along the same lines, are you suggesting it makes no sense to compare GTX1070 to GTX1080 then just because they are not priced in the same tier? When I bought GTX1070 SLI, I did cross-reference performance with GTX1080 because they cost very similarly. In much the same way we can compare the value of GTX1060/RX 480 to a GTX1070, it's 100% legitimate to compare GTX1050Ti to GTX1060 3GB/RX 470 since they are close in price.

$30 extra for a card that's far faster than GTX1050Ti in a segment where the PC gamer is likely to keep the card for 2-4 years is a smoking deal.

Computerbase November 2, 2016 charts show RX 470 4GB beating GTX1050Ti by 34%
In comparison, MSI Gaming GTX1080 is only 21% faster than MSI Gaming GTX1070 at 1440p
https://www.computerbase.de/thema/grafikkarte/rangliste/

Sweclockers has RX 470 beating GTX1050Ti by 31%.

GCN continues to perform even better in modern titles. Most recent comparisons also show RX480 beating GTX1060 in AAA games. That means RX470 OC is actually going to provide performance much closer to a stock RX480/GTX1060, making it an even better value at $170.

The cheapest GTX1070 on Newegg is $370
The cheapest GTX1080 on Newegg is $600

The performance gain from GTX1070 to GTX1080 is on average only 21% or so and it costs $230 USD => $10.95 for every 1% increase in performance.

The cheapest GTX1050Ti on Newegg is $140 (+$5 sh&h)
The cheapest RX 470 4GB on Newegg is $165 (+$5 sh&h)

The performance gain from GTX1050Ti to RX 470 4GB is 25-34% and it costs ONLY $25-30 USD => $0.88-$1 for every 1% increase in performance

We also know that RX470 can be overclocked to reach RX 480 in performance.
http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=...dmin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1




In Infinite Warfare, RX 470 is almost as fast as the GTX1060.

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.

Whatever it takes to skew that data/information towards an NV card.

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.

$140 GTX1050Ti is a horrible deal for the informed/tech savvy PC gamer who lurks these forums. $165 RX 470 operating at stock speeds pays for itself in 60 days with ZEC mining, and in 120 days with Ethereum mining. That means mining has never been less risky since there are now 2 viable currencies that make $ on GCN 1.0-4.0 architectures! It's even possible to purchase an MSI Gaming RX 480 4GB for $155, which makes $140 GTX1050Ti look like a total joke.

ZEC mining is even easier to set up than Ethereum mining. Pick any one good OpenCL miner, download a Windows ZEC wallet, edit the OpenCL miner's batch file by copy the ZEC generated windows wallet into the OpenCL miner's batch file. It's never been a better time to buy an RX470/480 because with mining they are virtually free in less than 6 months, even with casual mining. There are already RX 480 4GB cards that are selling for $190 without any rebates or discounts too.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

$30 extra for a card that's far faster than GTX1050Ti in a segment where the PC gamer is likely to keep the card for 2-4 years is a smoking deal.

This is something that gets me, that I've thought about a lot and commented on a few times. Why the hell are nvidia/amd (specifically nvidia here) scrounging so much at the bottom end for these $20 difference cards? Like, I get the no-additional-power thing (despite the fact that there's NO issues buying a PSU with additional power molex) for some crappy low-end HTPC card, but fine, make one, price it at $100, call it good. Make a low-end card at $150-$200 (and subsequently fight with your competitor over pricing), make a midrange at 300-400 (apparently 400 is fine now for midrange), and a high end at your $600-$800 mark (with optional stupid card at $1200). But we've got a 1060 (two version), 1050, 1050ti, and what, 470, 460 all in the same bracket? With 480 creeping into that as well? Knowing these two, we'll get a 1060ti and 475 or some shit too, all stuffed within the same bracket.

And let's be honest, anything between 100 and 200 is the same bracket, the price differences in there are budget dust for your build. You can flex that with pulling 1TB off your storage drive, 50w down on your PSU, or doing 16GB of ram instead of 32.

EDIT: Oh, and this isn't even mentioning the market-clearoffs of old stuff. I've been seeing 980ti's for sub-400 (in some cases well under 400), and 980's/970's hovering at 200 as well (which may or may not be a deal depending on your perspective/use case). I don't follow AMD prices, but I'm sure they're similar.

 

[LTC8K6]

I still see 470 / 1050Ti comparisons as pushing the 470 down a tier in the card hierarchy where it really does not belong. It looks good there, sure.

The 1050Ti is a 75W 768:48:32 card.
The 470 is a 120W 2048:128:32 card.

Pricing is a mystery, too. The 470/480 seem too cheap.

I don't understand the giant gap between the 460 at 896:56:16 and the 470 at 2048:128:32.

 

[LTC8K6]

I mean, the 4GB 480 can be had for $199 now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131708

Why buy a $170 470 over a $200 480?

The price difference seems trivial.

 

[jpiniero]

Pricing is a mystery, too. The 470/480 seem too cheap.

Basically the 480 is only really selling to miners, and the 470 isn't really selling to anyone. The miner sales may be drying up.

I don't understand the giant gap between the 460 at 896:56:16 and the 470 at 2048:128:32.

My thinking is that the 460 was never supposed to exist but they ended up making a desktop card when AMD didn't get much in the way of OEM deals outside of Apple.