alcoholbob
Diamond Member
- May 24, 2005
- 6,271
- 323
- 126
Hmm shoulda waited for this instead of a getting a GTX 1060 Mini. Ended up being far more performance than I needed for a simple HTPC.
September 4th Update: Specs Out
https://benchlife.info/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050-4gb-gp107-400-09042016
60% the number of CUDA cores of GP106 (GTX 1060 6GB), compared to 38.8% for Polaris 11 (RX 460) vs Polaris 10 (RX 480). Clocks are a little conservative for Pascal, probably a lot of headroom left for custom cards / future refreshes.
I would prefer a 1050 without a power pin so it can replace the 750 Ti I've been recommending to folks who buy "Walmart" specials.Kinda disappointed about the clocks, with the architecture these should be capable of like 1.8GHz at decent power consumption should they not, possible justify a 6-pin version.
a very subtle jab indeedIn all truth, you weren't far off. It should be the 1050. XD
Kinda disappointed about the clocks, with the architecture these should be capable of like 1.8GHz at decent power consumption should they not, possible justify a 6-pin version.
Nvidia is going with a different GPC configuration with GP107 like they did with GM107. I had predicted 640 cuda cores (half GP106). For its TDP, it should be a beast. It will probably best the GTX 960 by 15%.
This card seems to be great and is the rival of the 470. Now AMD will have some problems on there.
Only 1 card is missing and is the GT 1040 for budget markets, being the true rival of the 460 and needs to be pinless and fanless in order to bring an unique card to the market. With that AMD would be totally defeated.
This thing definitely isn't going to beat the GTX 960 with that boost clock. In fact it will probably be about 15% slower (and thus compete directly with the RX 460 4GB).
This thing definitely isn't going to beat the GTX 960 with that boost clock. In fact it will probably be about 15% slower (and thus compete directly with the RX 460 4GB).
With those specs it isn't going to come anywhere near an RX 470. It will be roughly 40% slower.
So by extension it obviously goes without saying that the GT 1040 isn't going to be the true rival of the 460, since that job is clearly taken by the GTX 1050. The GT 1040 might end up competing with some cutdown version of Polaris 11 (i.e. Radeon 450)
Pascal can easily go above the rated Turbo, the same should apply to GP107 (unless power limited). Specs wouldn't suggest a GTX 1060 matches a GTX 980, but it does. GTX 1050 vs GTX 960 should be similar, and that already puts it 20% above a RX 460:
https://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/RX_460_STRIX_OC/images/perfrel_1920_1080.png
Anyway, the real show here will come from custom models.
If 50% less shading performance leads to 50% less game performance (which would assume that shading performance is the main bottleneck), then the 1050 will end up at roughly 10-15% slower than the GTX 960, and roughly equal to the RX 460 4GB.
Doesn't work like this. 1060 6GB has 2/3 the shader performance of GTX 1070, but 72.5% the gaming performance according to TPU. Partners will probably have factory OCed cards at launch, especially those with 6-pin power connectors - and we know Pascal can clock high.
Ps: Reference GTX 960 is 21.2% faster than RX 460 4GB Nitro in your link, same as what I posted.
Actually it works exactly like this, I guess you missed the part where I wrote "which would assume that shading performance is the main bottleneck".
But either way I think it's safe to say that the 1050 will not beat the 960 by 15% with those specs
Actually I didn't, I just don't agree that it it will be 15% slower than a 960 based on this, when it isn't the case with 1060 6GB vs 1070.
The shading performance is not the main bottleneck with regards to the 1060 vs the 1070
At this point it's anyone's guess whether shading performance or bandwidth is the main bottleneck.
Nvidia needs to bring NVENC and HEVC/VP9 hardware decoders to sub-$100