Absolutely not. Cherry-picked settings in random titles NV picked don't matter to show the average performance delta. TimeSpy score shows that 1050Ti is barely faster than the GTX960. EVGA confirms it's not going to be even 25% faster than a GTX960:
"The EVGA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and 1050 may look small, but they offer big performance. In fact the
EVGA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is about 26% faster than a GTX 950, and the GeForce GTX 1050 is about 16% faster." ~
Source
First of all I really don't see how those benches would be cherry picked seeing as the only way to really get an outsized difference between Pascal and Maxwell cards is to cherrypick games that uses a large amount of compute combined with async compute which isn't the case for any of the games seen here.
Second of all I never said that these games represented the final answer, quite the contrary in fact, if you had actually bothered reading my post.
Lastly it is nothing short of laughable that you accuse me of using cherrypicked titles and then go on to cherrypick a title of your own and a synthetic one at that.
It also seems you never read reviews on RX 470 closely as you would known just how much faster than GTX960 it really is, especially since RX 470 has ~20% overclocking scaling headroom.
Nope, not happening.
The one who needs to read some review here is you.
Across a large range of reviews, the RX 470 is on average 40% faster than a GTX 960.
I was actually being generous to the RX 470, since my number assume a 50% difference between the two cards (if the 1050 Ti is 20% faster than GTX 960 and 20% slower than RX 470, then by extension the RX 470 must be 50% faster than the 960).
First, RX 470 has massive overclocking headroom that starts off a much stronger base performance than 1050Ti's will.
An overclocked RX 470 beats a stock RX 480 and GTX980.
It's cute that you think that you actually have the slightest clue about how the 1050 Ti will overclock relative to the RX 470, when in reality we all know that you don't, since noone has actually tested the overclockability of the 1050 Ti.
Second, 1050Ti's performance will be below 60 fps in modern titles in many cases where RX 470 won't be.
redatedsherlock, I already said that based on the above slides the RX 470 would be 25% faster.
In that context, the price/performance metric has to be taken into context. Just $30-40 more will get one to move into an RX 470/1060 3GB card that will actually provide solid 60 fps performance in AAA titles with minor settings turned down.
I don't think you understand how the price/performance metric works, you can't just say that $X more gives X FPS more, it's all about the relative difference. In other words $30-40 more is equal to 21-29% more (relative to $140 for the 1050 Ti), and for that you get 25% more performance.
You are free to make argument in absolute numbers, and in fact I would say that that can often be quite helpful, but that doesn't have anything to do with the price/performance metric.
It's amazing to reach on this forum how people are trying to align price/performance curves with the 1050Ti and RX 470 but at the same time advocate spending hundreds of dollars more to buy a GTX1070 instead of the Fury and don't even blink at the thought of recommending $220 more expensive GTX1080 over the GTX1070 for ~ 22-25% more performance. Why should a budget gamer try to save $30-40 and lose 20-30% more performance? That's a horrible trade-off.
And it's amazing how you can put up strawmen. I have never argued that anyone should buy a 1070 instead of a Fury, or a 1080 over a 1070, but by all means keep tilting at windmills.
Some of you clearly don't understand that in a blind-test, the average PC gamer who is the target market for sub-$200 dGPUs won't be able to tell the difference in playability between an RX 470/480/1060 3GB but they will be able to tell the difference between RX 470/1060 and the 1050Ti. In modern games, the RX 470 is very close to the RX 480/1060 cards.
And again with the strawmen, I never said that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Anyone would agree that the RX 470 being 25% faster is a significant difference.
Literally in recent AAA titles, RX 470 is up there with GTX1060 in performance. So how can it be that for just $30-40 savings the 1050Ti will be a good deal?
It's getting a bit tiresome to point out all your strawmen, since 90% of your post is strawman arguments, so I'm just going to stop now.
Anyway it's funny that you just accused me of cherrypicking when you know damn well that the 1060 beats the 470 in the vast majority of recent AAA titles. This is of course also clearly evident by the fact that the 1060 beats the 470 in 6 out of the 8 benchmarks you just cherrypicked.
It seems some of you never bothered reading reviews on RX 470 when you are comparing GTX1050Ti to it. RX 470 is much closer in performance to the GTX1060 3GB/GTX970/980/R9 390.
20-25% faster than GTX960 won't even make a dent to come close to the RX 470.
Again you're just plain wrong here, and to prove it I'll just give you
the link again.
The 470 is on average 40% faster than the 960, so a card that is 20-25% faster than the 960 will be within 12-17% of the RX 470. And again I actually said that the RX 470 would be 25% faster than the 1050 Ti.
Thirdly, the market has even better deals than $170 RX 470 such as the
$180 MSI Gaming RX 480 4GB. There is no way a GTX1050Ti is worth $140 for gaming in the USA when AIB RX 480 4GB is dropping to $180. We are talking $180 card that has similar performance to the $250-$300 GTX1060s. Now that's value! GTX1050 and 1050Ti need to be $79 and $109 cards to make sense. In the context of overall performance, it simply isn't logical to save $30-40 over 2-2.5 years of GPU ownership to lose 20-40% GPU performance. That's like 1/2 price of a single AAA game. RX 470/480 4GB and GTX1060 3GB are all bare minimum GPUs that gamers should be purchasing. Everything below should be skipped, unless going into the used dGPU market where R9 390/290/290X are dirt cheap.
That RX 480 is a nice deal without a doubt, but it's also a rarity. The second cheapest RX 480 on Newegg is $230. The truth is that all cards in this segment need to drop in price if RX 480 4GB starts to become generally available at $180. This includes the RX 470, RX 460, GTX 1060 (3 and 6GB) and of course the 1050 and 1050 Ti (although $79 and $109 are obviously hyperbole).
But until the RX 480 4GB actually becomes readily available at that price point, it's a moot point.
As I mentioned already, even if AMD had cards 30-40% faster than GTX1050/1050Ti, NV would still outsell them. So any logical argument why GTX1050/1050Ti won't be worth buying will fall on deaf ears just like 8600GT/8600GTS/GTS450/550Ti/GT610->650Ti/GT710->750Ti all sold well and they were all horrible gaming GPUs.
If the numbers shake out according similarly to those graphs, then AMD will have a card that's maybe 25% and costs about 30% more, whilst using upwards of twice the power and requiring a PCI power connector.
It wouldn't really be weird if the 1050 Ti sold well.
And quite frankly the 1050 Ti is a brilliant e-game GPU, which is exactly what it's being marketed as.
No profanity allowed in tech.
esquared
Anandtech Forum Director