Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 & 1050 Ti Review

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Not open for further replies.

Jorge Nascimento

Mar 18, 2014
Acording to Guru3D, RX 460 2GB has less 2 fps then GTX 1050 2gb, RX460 4GB beats gtx 1050 2gb model and stays behind GTX 1050TI 4gb by a couple of fps.
SAPPHIRE AMD RX 470 OC 4GB costs 10€ more then a Asus GTX 1050ti 4gb and beats GTX at low and mid lvl again.
In my country a Sapphire RX 480 OC nitro + is cheaper then a GTX 1060 OC version by 17€.
So +17€ for a + 5-6fps on dx11, and gets rekt by more then +10 fps on dx12 and on vulkan gets close to a gtx 1070, btw Deus EX on dx 12, rx 480 gives less 9 fps then a gtx 1070.

First of all, this review is about the 1050 and 1050 Ti, not a 1060 or 1070. Second, most people on the planet don't live in your nation. Everyone is spread out. So the prices in your nation are meaningless to someone else. The only valid consistent comparison of card costs is to use a single pricing release source where supply-demand costs, tariffs, and import fees do not artificially displace actual selling cost. The official pricing release from Nvidia is that measure (in the US, the cards are officially being released at $109 and $139).

Third, regarding performance of the 2GB 1050 vs. 4GB 460, it depends on the game and resolution/quality settings. Never mind the 4GB 460 costs $30 more than the 2GB 460 as well as the 2GB 1050. So they aren't really comparable directly.

Direct pricing wise in for US releases are $140 for the 4GB 1050Ti and $140 for the 4GB 460. That's the fair comparison right there. And the 1050Ti smokes the 4GB 460 everywhere, beating it out between 10%-35% in both DX11 and DX12 games.

Point being: the 2GB 1050 is not comparable to a 4GB 460 (even though a 1050 2GB card beats the 4GB 460 in Far Cry 4 and Witcher III):



Point being? Your premise is way off.



The 1050 is definitely the new budget king, for blizzard titles, especially. GTX 950ish performance, at a 750ti price, with the same low power requirements. The 750ti, and 950 would need a major price drop, to be considered worthwhile, now.



That's not in dispute. But nVidia isn't marketing the 1050/1050Ti as "competition" for their own 1060 models. They're gearing them for different sectors:
-- gamers who are still gaming below 1080p resolutions;
-- gamers who are either OK with 60FPS on max/close to max settings because their monitor only goes that high;
-- gamers that are updating an OEM rig with an OEM PSU, & need a discrete GPU that doesn't require separate PCIe power connectors; &
-- gamers building low-end ITX boxes that want a cool-running GPU (maybe so that they can use a slightly better CPU)

Someone who's rocking a 144Hz/1080p or 60-75Hz/1440p monitor isn't going to pick a 1050/1050Ti (& depending on the game, might not even pick a 1060 for the latter), but again for some gamers & systems even a 1060 is going to be overkill.



You forgot this one:
-- casual gamers who cannot be bothered to spend much over $150 on a GPU. (Ex.: me.)

I have recently returned to WoW (using WoW token for game time - I had over 200k gold on my account when I quit WoW during Cataclysm) and my HD5770 isn't quite cutting it anymore in Draenor/Legion. Regardless of how high/low I put the settings, GPU utilization never breaks 30%, which tells me I'm hard-bottlenecked by its 1GB VRAM. I'll probably get a 1050 non-Ti to fix that when more no-frills models become readily available. At the moment, I'm considering the Zotac 1050 Mini.


Yes, the budget-limited market is also ideal for a GTX 1050/1050Ti. Although I'm more of an AMD fan myself, the RX 460 just doesn't cut it compared to them, & the RX 470 is (at least for you) outside of the budget.
Not open for further replies.