GTX1050 to be launched in October

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Why not the full fat P11? is that going to be an RX 465?

The full Polaris 11 GPU has 14% more shaders than the one used in the RX460.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The 1050 Ti is mildly faster, while also consuming far less power and having newer features.

So if you can get them around the same price, go for the 1050 Ti.

Basically the same performance for the last two years at the same price point?

Also,I know people with HP and Dell prebuilt PCs running a GTX960. People forget that a Core i3 based system with a GTX960 probably is consuming less than 200W anyway.

I have a mini-ITX system with a Xeon E3 1230 V2,16GB of DDR3,an SSD,two HDDs and an H40 AIO water cooler.

Unless I run 3DMark,my system was more around the 180W to 190W level at the wall in very intensive games with a GTX660 and the GTX960 was no worse.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The power issue is significant for many. My father has Dell with a few years on it. As is often the case the CPU is fine but the GPU is poor (a GT640) and the PSU is a bit of an unknown. So, when looking for an upgrade, a card that can offer 1080p gaming -- albeit with some compromises -- that avoids concerns about power draw is a big plus.

Frankly the pricing isn't that insane and a lot of the web commentary is overblown (as usual). Yes, 150 quid breaks the price performance curve if you're looking at the 470 as the standard but 140 quid is at the comparison boundary and 130 quid would be well in the range based on overall benchmarks and 470 UK pricing with availability. Once the initial stocking situation is sorted I'm sure we'll see that 140 quid mark hit and cards dipping below that won't be far behind.

I can understand why a lot of PC gamers would have no interest in the 1050ti over the 470 with a £20-30 gap because the power issue is irrelevant to them and framerates and cranking the settings on new releases are everything. Not everyone sees things that way, far from it.

Yes,and yet you forget the other issue - the motherboards.

Certain prebuilt systems from Dell,etc had PCI-E slots which were not fully wired to give 75W from the slot(!).

The GTX750 and GTX750TI are a lower TDP and power consumption class than either the GTX1050 and GTX1050TI. IIRC,they are rated around 50W/55W so could easily fit into older systems. The newer cards are around 75W.

Then you have the other issue - compatability. It is no given these older motherboards will actually work with some of the latest cards,and the fact is those prebuilt systems don't always get suitable BIOS updates either.

For example a mate of a mate who has an old Dell with a Q6600 wanted a new card. I suggested they go with a GTX750TI or GTX950 as they would work - the RX460 had some issues from what I gathered and there is no guarantee the GTX1050/GTX1050TI won't have the same problem.

In fact my GTX960 has a cold boot issue with my current motherboard(its ASRock but I had no choice at the time),so even with newer motherboards you can have issues.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I didn't forget it. It's just a null issue as far as a new card upgrade goes. Either a card works or it doesn't. If it doesn't and a BIOS upgrade won't fix it then you've got a return and a whole other set of upgrade paths to consider. The chance that my Dad's Dell won't boot with a 1050ti plugged in doesn't suddenly make the 470, with its equal chance of not working and the added PSU issues and the extra 20-30 quid the choice to make.

This whole conversation is just repeating the same cycle we have with every mid-range/budget GPU. People won't just accept something being decent but not mind-blowing for a certain user. If it's not the new Messiah and blowing the doors off everything then it's rubbish.

You are the one who said the GTX1050TI would be better for older systems with older PSUs and in the end you have forgotten that older systems have other problems.

Its not me stating to get a RX470 INSTEAD - you made that up yourself especially when you on purpose ignored what I said about the RX460.

Dont ever think all of us just buy super duper high end rigs and don't have friends and relatives in the same situation with older rigs. Its a practical problem - not considering motherboard compatability is as big a sin as as not considering the size and age of the PSU for such systems.

And also most retailers won't pay return postage too,and then they could be waiting a week or two for a refund.

This is why I told that chap to get a GTX750TI as soon as he could before they all go EOL. The GTX1050 or the RX460 would be ideal but I am not going to put them through all that hassle of playing compatability games. The RX460 is definitely off the list considering certain issues with certain older systems.

I have a sodding GTX960 FFS - my previous card was a GTX660. So you can roughly tell what kind of price-range cards I buy.

Plus for the last few years I only have had a 450W PSU and don't intend to go any higher.

Edit!!

I also had a Q6600 system with a 975X motherboard before - I always went with a slightly older card in case a new one had issues with my Shuttle motherboard.

The GTX750TI will fit into much more systems than a RX460 or GTX1050/GTX1050TI IMHO.

Heck,even that bus powered GTX950 will too.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

No, I didn't forget it. I've already checked forums and done the usual groundwork as far as you can. I just didn't _mention_ the specific concerns over motherboard compatibility you bring up for the reason I gave above. I also specifically mentioned the 470 as a comparison because that's the one being floated in the post you responded to so forgive me for being consistent.

Your the one who made the statement,so in the end it needs to be followed by being consistent too and also considering compatability. As I mentioned twice already if an RX460 could have issues,then most likely it follows that an RX470 and probably a GTX1050/GTX1050TI will too.

Also,you might forget other statements I made here:

I wish some of these companies did something different - make some of the cards single slot or low profile FFS!! At least that would make it more useful in terms of compatability in different cases.

TBF its also party the fault of AMD - the RX460 uses a cut down Polaris 11 GPU. If they had launched it with the full GPU,we might have seen the RX460 sale past the GTX1050.

ATM,the RX460 and GTX1050 seem much of a sameness IMHO.

So I bemoaned the fact AMD only released a cut down Polaris 11 which meant Nvidia didn't need to do much especially when the WX4100 has a full Polaris 11 GPU in a low profile,single slot bus powered card.

Then also the fact none of them have released low profile or single slot cards.

There are plenty of desktop systems which can only take low profile cards,or don't have much room for a dual slot card(some of the systems with horizontal desktop cases).

How the heck can I get excited(and I only really build SFF systems like mini-ITX and Shuttle ones),when they make these oversized cards??

Surely use the TDP savings to make smaller cards??

At this rate if your system is compatible and not having a totally ancient CPU,it might even worth spending £30 to £35 extra on a PSU to get an RX470 or GTX1060 3GB because in FPS/£ metrics I suspect the GTX1050TI would need to be £224 to £240 if we used the Hexus EVGA GTX1050TI as a baseline.

They got so shocked by the ACTUAL price it appears,they went from reasonable praise of the GTX1050TI to saying to just spend the extra on a RX470 4GB or GTX1060 3GB!!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I still don't get why AMD would cut down P11 unless they were waiting for the 1050TI and then release the full fat one..

With AMD its hard to say really. I even predicted that the GTX1050 would probably be faster anyway. They always seem to set themselves up easily for Nvidia to pip them. Anything over £100 for a RX460 was not worth it even at launch. Luckily for AMD,Nvidia has priced the GTX1050 a tad higher but still if the difference is under £10,a GTX1050 probably has the edge in systems which do have weaker CPUs due to the DX11 driver overhead. AMD might get some back with DX12 and Vulkan but if the RX460 had not been so cut down it would have been no contest between the RX460 and the GTX1050. But once you knew it was a 14CU card,you could see where it was heading.

The lack of single slot and low profile RX460 and GTX1050 cards is also pathetic.

We had single slot bus powered 9800GT cards back in the day. 9800GT Green Edition was a great card.

Apparently this is beyond the means of many companies now.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You can look at GTX 1050 Ti performance how it compare to other cards.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1050_Ti_Gaming_X/27.html

GTX 1050 Ti is 17% faster than GTX 960 at 1080p. A 15% OC would bring GTX 1050 Ti with 1669MHz boost clock to 115% performance close to stock RX 470.

https://nl.hardware.info/reviews/70...nchmarks-hardwareinfo-gpu-prestatiescore-2016

Hardware.info is probably the only one had included R9 290 in review but no GTX 960. A stock GTX 1050 Ti is only 2% slower than stock R9 290 at 1080p medium settings and a bit OC should match stock R9 290 at ultra settings but it would not matched R9 290 at higher resolutions due to 128 bit memory bus limitation.

OCUK has OCUK GTX 1060 Dual 3GB Halloween deal for £179.99 sound like better deal than MSI GTX 1050 Ti and RX 470 that you may find it more acceptance price.

So an aftermarket pre-overclocked GTX1050TI 4GB against a reference GTX960 2GB with a blower cooler running at reference clockspeeds??

The aftermarket GTX960 4GB cards like mine,won't be much slower at all.

Don't believe me here is a review with a GTX960 4GB card:

http://www.purepc.pl/karty_graficzn...0_ti_alternatywa_dla_geforce_gtx_960?page=0,6

Its barely 10% faster on average.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

My system with a compact GTX960 4GB,Xeon E3 1230 V2,16GB of DDR3,a 480GB SSD and two 2TB HDDs consumes around 190W under load running 3DMark or Crysis 3. I have a relatively small case too(a mini-ITX one with limited cooling). Thing is the most I have ever seen it go upto is like 210W briefly. Many games are under that so that means the actual 12V line is much less loaded.Most modern OEM PSUs in system are from companies like Delta or FSP and are biased towards the 12V line anyway.

People overestimate how much of a PSU they really need since many PSU companies like to push excessive wattage PSUs at every turn.

Valve probably knows what they are talking about:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/10/05/steam-box-specs-revealed/

The 300 prototype units will ship with the following components:
GPU: some units with NVidia Titan, some GTX780, some GTX760, and some GTX660
CPU: some boxes with Intel i7-4770, some i5-4570, and some i3
RAM: 16GB DDR3-1600 (CPU), 3GB GDDR5 (GPU)
Storage: 1TB/8GB Hybrid SSHD
Power Supply: Internal 450w 80Plus Gold
Dimensions: approx. 12 x 12.4 x 2.9 in high

Yep,Valve was powering a Geforce Titan and a Core i7 4770 off a small form factor 450W.

I wonder how a decade a go I managed with 250W to 400W PSUs in my SFF systems with half decent cards. Oh wait,my last two systems had under 500W PSUs too.

Do yourself a favour and buy a RX470 4GB or a GTX1060 3GB. Even if you have to spend £35 on a PSU,they are both better value.

Even my GTX960 4GB is pushed in games now,so the GTX1050TI is a waste of time at £140 to £160 and my card cost less too. Have you noticed how the review sites tested the expensive ones too??

If you want GTX960 level performance - buy a secondhand GTX960 4GB for under £100 or save up for a proper card. Companies like Gigabyte have transferable warranties as they are dependent on the serial number(not the original purchaser) IIRC.

You could have bought similar performance last year or even the year before. The card is not even massively cheaper. You could get GTX960 and R9 285/R9 380 2GB cards for £120 a YEAR ago,and 4GB cards for not much more on offer.

This is why on Steam more people bought a GTX970 or a GTX960 than either a GTX750TI or GTX750. In reality the GTX970 and GTX960 needing additional power didn't factor into most people's considerations. I would argue the fact the GTX750 and GTX750TI were £80 to £100 were more important.

The problem is that both the RX460 and GTX1050/GTX1050TI are using mobile GPUs tarted up in desktop cards. I am sure relative to their ancestors in each range they look much better in laptops where cooling and size is more limited.

The lack of low profile and single slot RX460,GTX1050 or GTX1050TI cards is hilarious. If companies are going to boast about power consumption and TDP at least make cards which can actually fit into more systems.

No,lets make cards BIGGER than a mini-ITX GTX1070 or a Fury Nano.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Repeat.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So im looking at upgrading the 750Ti thats in my HTPC which has the following...

GB GA-H67N-USB3-B3
i5 2500K
16GB RAM

I have watch the Digital Foundry Youtube vids of the 1050Ti which they running very high settings and the card seems to struggle to hit a constant 60fps @1080p but im under the impression that DF always do there benchmarks with max AA and AF settings which kills fps in most cases (i only usually run x4 for both).

Do any 1050 owners have an remarks on 60fps @ 1080p with this card or should i get the 1060 3GB version??....i know its obviously a better card but its also more money!

PS. the PSU in my Sugo SG05 case only is 450watt, will this be an issue for either a 1050 or 1060?

I had only two 500W/520W PSUs in my entire life,and the rest under 500W.

That Silverstone 450W unit is solid - it should run a GTX1070 fine IMHO.