I'm well aware the RX 570 is the better value over a GTX 1050/Ti. What I have a problem with was the misinformation on the performance metrics.
With the link I provided, the RX 570 is about 10% faster on average. That's not twice the performance.
An RX 570 is way more than 10% faster than a 1050 Ti. Nearly double the performance of a 1050 sounds about right, or close to 50% more performance than a 1050 Ti, especially if you look at numbers for higher resolutions and graphics settings, where the CPU should be holding back performance less of the time...
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-rx-570-pulse/30.html
https://www.techspot.com/review/1777-geforce-1050ti-vs-radeon-570
Actual review sites tend to show the RX 570 as having roughly a 45% performance advantage on average at 1080p when turning up the settings in recent games. Granted, graphics cards are generally paired with a high-end CPU in most reviews, and a lower-end processor can limit maximum frame rates, but even when CPU-limited it should typically be possible to turn the graphics settings up higher on a 570 without significantly impacting frame rates, while the same can't be said for a 1050 Ti.
Also, that "GPU Check" site looks very questionable. Where are they pulling those performance numbers out of?
"Benchmark Quality Settings: Low Quality Settings"
Who tests graphics cards at low quality settings? That's measuring CPU performance, not GPU, which should be evident by the drop of only around 5% moving from 1080p to 1440p, and averaging 80+ FPS even at 4K with an entry-level card. And even at low settings, I would be highly suspicious of their numbers. I find it rather unlikely that a 1050 Ti would be pushing out 120+ FPS in practically every recent game at 1440p, especially since this is purportedly how the games will perform on a dual-core i3. 130 FPS in Battlefield V on a 2-core, 4-thread processor? 120 FPS in Assassin's Creed Origins and Odyssey? As best, I wouldn't expect much more than a 60 FPS experience out of those games on that hardware. Talk about "misinformation on performance metrics". : P But even they show the RX 570 being over 40% faster than a 1050 Ti if you select the "Ultra" settings option, though I'm still not sure I'd trust their numbers all that much.
With the 1050 Ti typically priced as much or higher, it's only notable advantages are lower power draw and availability in low-profile options. I believe that PSU should have a 6+2 pin PCIe power cable though (you might want to verify), and while it's not exactly a high-capacity unit, I suspect it should be of decent-enough quality to run an RX 570, especially considering the rest of that system's components should have relatively low power draw. In any case, even if power draw were a concern, a 1050 Ti would still be a bit pointless now (at least if buying new) since Nvidia has since released their GTX 1650, which is generally about the same price, but with better performance than a 1050 Ti (Though still typically averaging around 10-15% behind an RX 570 when not CPU-limited).
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram