Is 1050 ti worth $50 more than 1050?

[vapour]

Lacking deals on 1060 6 gb, 1070 and 1080. 1050 ti seems to be performing not that much better than 1050. I want to know your opinions.

 

[captaincharisma]

so you bought both versions of the 1050?

 

[Lutfij]

If you must choose between a GTX 1050 and the GTX1050Ti, I'd simply go for the Ti version. What do you mean not performing by that much? What titles are we looking at here?

 

[Tolis_GR]

1060 3gb>1050 4gb>1050 2gb
Remember that quite soon, 2 gb won't be enough to run newest gaming applications. Even 3gb will retire soon. Future proofing to consider is 4-6gb or more. Don't buy anything that won't play games for the next couple of years

 

[InvalidError]

Remember that quite soon, 2 gb won't be enough to run newest gaming applications. Even 3gb will retire soon.

How much is enough depends a lot on how high you want to crank details. People who don't care about details and are happy at the lowest settings possible can still make-do with 1GB, though it can quickly get painful with Windows itself eating roughly half of it. 2GB should be comfortable at the lower end of the spectrum for quite a while to come. At the 1050(Ti) GPU performance class, you're still more likely to run out of compute performance before running into a real VRAM size bottleneck. The first thing that gets cut off when you run out of VRAM is asset copies between VRAM channels for better load balancing between channels which doesn't affect GPU performance that badly.

 

[Tolis_GR]

Remember that quite soon, 2 gb won't be enough to run newest gaming applications. Even 3gb will retire soon.

How much is enough depends a lot on how high you want to crank details. People who don't care about details and are happy at the lowest settings possible can still make-do with 1GB, though it can quickly get painful with Windows itself eating roughly half of it. 2GB should be comfortable at the lower end of the spectrum for quite a while to come. At the 1050(Ti) GPU performance class, you're still more likely to run out of compute performance before running into a real VRAM size bottleneck. The first thing that gets cut off when you run out of VRAM is asset copies between VRAM channels for better load balancing between channels which doesn't affect GPU performance that badly.

Noted, for many instances yes. But try to run BF_1 with 1 gb of VRAM. It can run it but it stalls. Being a PC gamer since my childhood, i cannot suggest anyone today buying a gpu with less of 4 gb vram. What is the point of being a pc gamer anyway if you don;t care about settings and details?

 

[InvalidError]

Being a PC gamer since my childhood, i cannot suggest anyone today buying a gpu with less of 4 gb vram. What is the point of being a pc gamer anyway if you don;t care about settings and details?

Some "PC gamers" aren't building PCs for gaming as the primary purpose, they just happen to have a PC available that they can also game on by adding an affordable but still decently capable GPU.

Having 4GB of VRAM does you no good if the GPU is at 100% shader load long before hitting 2GB of VRAM usage. I'm playing WoW right now, it is using ~50% of available VRAM (averages around 1GB) and 90-100% of the shaders on my 1050 with everything but AA and view distance maxed out. Nowhere near running out of VRAM but already bottlenecked by the GPU's compute capacity despite WoW not being considered a graphically demanding title.

 

[Solandri]

Remember that quite soon, 2 gb won't be enough to run newest gaming applications. Even 3gb will retire soon. Future proofing to consider is 4-6gb or more. Don't buy anything that won't play games for the next couple of years

People keep saying this. The vast majority of VRAM is used to hold textures. A single 2k texture (ultra) is about 30 MB, so a hundred or more textures can quickly eat up your VRAM.

While it's true that games are shipping with more and higher-res textures which use more VRAM, you're never going to encounter a situation where a GPU "won't play games" because of too little VRAM. If that ever happens, all you have to do is lower the texture quality one notch and the game will play just fine. A 1k texture (high) is about 8 MB. A 512x512 texture (med) is about 2 MB. So the VRAM used decreases to about 1/4 for every notch you lower texture quality.

I'd only consider 4+ GB VRAM "necessary" if you're playing at 4k resolution, or *maybe* 1440p.

 

[vapour]

so you bought both versions of the 1050?

Nope, if I want to spend that money, I will get a 1060 already

 

[vapour]

If you must choose between a GTX 1050 and the GTX1050Ti, I'd simply go for the Ti version. What do you mean not performing by that much? What titles are we looking at here?

Saw some FPS comparison, it seems if one struggles for some games, the other one will struggle similarly...

 

[vapour]

1060 3gb>1050 4gb>1050 2gb
Remember that quite soon, 2 gb won't be enough to run newest gaming applications. Even 3gb will retire soon. Future proofing to consider is 4-6gb or more. Don't buy anything that won't play games for the next couple of years

If 1070/1080/RX 580 etc. prices are not this ridiculous...

 

[vapour]

Remember that quite soon, 2 gb won't be enough to run newest gaming applications. Even 3gb will retire soon.

How much is enough depends a lot on how high you want to crank details. People who don't care about details and are happy at the lowest settings possible can still make-do with 1GB, though it can quickly get painful with Windows itself eating roughly half of it. 2GB should be comfortable at the lower end of the spectrum for quite a while to come. At the 1050(Ti) GPU performance class, you're still more likely to run out of compute performance before running into a real VRAM size bottleneck. The first thing that gets cut off when you run out of VRAM is asset copies between VRAM channels for better load balancing between channels which doesn't affect GPU performance that badly.

Agreed, mid-high 1080 is good enough for me

 

[vapour]

Remember that quite soon, 2 gb won't be enough to run newest gaming applications. Even 3gb will retire soon. Future proofing to consider is 4-6gb or more. Don't buy anything that won't play games for the next couple of years

People keep saying this. The vast majority of VRAM is used to hold textures. A single 2k texture (ultra) is about 30 MB, so a hundred or more textures can quickly eat up your VRAM.

While it's true that games are shipping with more and higher-res textures which use more VRAM, you're never going to encounter a situation where a GPU "won't play games" because of too little VRAM. If that ever happens, all you have to do is lower the texture quality one notch and the game will play just fine. A 1k texture (high) is about 8 MB. A 512x512 texture (med) is about 2 MB. So the VRAM used decreases to about 1/4 for every notch you lower texture quality.

I'd only consider 4+ GB VRAM "necessary" if you're playing at 4k resolution, or *maybe* 1440p.

Wondering if only gaming with mid-high 1080p, is there significant diff for new games?

 

[InvalidError]

A single 2k texture (ultra) is about 30 MB, so a hundred or more textures can quickly eat up your VRAM.

Not all details at 4k output require 2k-size textures, so you only need that sort of high resolution on things that get smacked right up into players' faces, everything else can be (much) lower resolution without affecting visual quality under normal playing conditions - as in not zooming into walls and other objects to look at grain in brick/wood/whatever textures.

What eats up a lot of VRAM is replicating textures between memory channels to multiply the effective available bandwidth for frequently used textures. That's why the same games use different amounts of VRAM largely dependent on the number of memory channels.

 

[vapour]

promotion of 1050 -> $ 105 compared to 1050 ti -> $155, wondering if latter is worth the extra $50

 

[InvalidError]

promotion of 1050 -> $ 105 compared to 1050 ti -> $155, wondering if latter is worth the extra $50

50% more cash for ~10% more performance? Not worth it IMO.

 

[dontlistentome]

It depends. If the 1050 gets you 35fps in a certain game, and the 1050 Ti gets 45fps in that same game, is it worth it? Only you can say. To me the answer is no. I'd live with the 35fps until I could afford to buy a card that puts me well over 50fps, that's the kind of difference I'd need to see for it to be worth it to me.