Should I get a GTX 970 or go for the newer GTX 1050ti

[dragonwolf8504]

I'm having a hard time deciding if the extra $25-50 is worth it for an older GTX 970 over the roughly $200 for a 1050ti.

I can get a MSI GTX 970 4GD5T OC for about $225 shipped from someone local (they belong to a Facebook group "PC gamers of" Ohio on my case.) Or should I get a 1050ti? I play all my games at 1920x1200.

Current computer specs are:
AMD FX 6350 @ 3.9GHz
16GB Ram
AMD Radeon HD 5770 1GB.
535W Raidmax Thunder V2 80+Bronze PSU. only 1x 6pin pci power plug that I can see. (This was a used machine I swapped for in thoughts of upgrading it over my Alienware 17's aging 770M 3GB card.)

So ultimately in the $200 range a 1050ti or seemingly "splurge" on a 970?

Games I play:
Ark Survival Evolved
Empyrion: Galactic Survival
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

These are probably my 3 most demanding games I have.

FPS on the 770m on Low to Medium would barely reach 30. So if I can manage 30+ fps and be able to push the graphics more awesome!

Sorry so long!



TLDR
Spend a little extra for older GTX 970
or
Save cash and get GTX 1050ti
$200 + shipping cost budget.

 

[10tacle]

The GTX 970 is anywhere from 25%-50% faster than a GTX 1050Ti depending on game. The 970 is roughly equal in performance to a 3GB 1060 (but slower than the 6GB 1060). So while it may be a three year old tech GPU now, it still has several more years of life left and the GTX 1050Ti will never catch up to it - unless Nvidia stops driver support for the GTX 9xx series which won't happen until the early 2020s (basing this on Nvidia's end of life GPU support history of past generation GPUs). Currently the oldest/last GPU on the driver support list from Nvidia is the Kepler 6xx series (introduced in 2012). Fermi (5xx) introduced in 2010 no longer has driver updates.

6GB GTX 1060 > GTX 970/3GB GTX 1060 > GTX 1050Ti.

 

[dragonwolf8504]

The GTX 970 is anywhere from 25%-50% faster than a GTX 1050Ti depending on game. The 970 is roughly equal in performance to a 3GB 1060 (but slower than the 6GB 1060). So while it may be a three year old tech GPU now, it still has several more years of life left and the GTX 1050Ti will never catch up to it unless Nvidia stops driver support for the GTX 9xx series which won't happen until the early 2020s (basing this on Nvidia's end of life GPU support history of past generation GPUs).

6GB GTX 1060 > GTX 970/3GB GTX 1060 > GTX 1050Ti.

So if I went with a 1060 3GB card (since I have no plans of going past 1200p resolution for AT LEAST a couple of years.) Then I would get the same performance?

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

The GTX 970 is anywhere from 25%-50% faster than a GTX 1050Ti depending on game. The 970 is roughly equal in performance to a 3GB 1060 (but slower than the 6GB 1060). So while it may be a three year old tech GPU now, it still has several more years of life left and the GTX 1050Ti will never catch up to it unless Nvidia stops driver support for the GTX 9xx series which won't happen until the early 2020s (basing this on Nvidia's end of life GPU support history of past generation GPUs).

6GB GTX 1060 > GTX 970/3GB GTX 1060 > GTX 1050Ti.

So if I went with a 1060 3GB card (since I have no plans of going past 1200p resolution for AT LEAST a couple of years.) Then I would get the same performance?

yeah, but 3gbs Vram is low enough. if playing at 1200p, the 6gb would be much better.

 

[dragonwolf8504]

The GTX 970 is anywhere from 25%-50% faster than a GTX 1050Ti depending on game. The 970 is roughly equal in performance to a 3GB 1060 (but slower than the 6GB 1060). So while it may be a three year old tech GPU now, it still has several more years of life left and the GTX 1050Ti will never catch up to it unless Nvidia stops driver support for the GTX 9xx series which won't happen until the early 2020s (basing this on Nvidia's end of life GPU support history of past generation GPUs).

6GB GTX 1060 > GTX 970/3GB GTX 1060 > GTX 1050Ti.

So if I went with a 1060 3GB card (since I have no plans of going past 1200p resolution for AT LEAST a couple of years.) Then I would get the same performance?

yeah, but 3gbs Vram is low enough. if playing at 1200p, the 6gb would be much better.

Ok, will...I'm used to my old GTX 770M 3GB card...wondering how happy I would be going up to even a 1060 3GB card.

 

[10tacle]

So if I went with a 1060 3GB card (since I have no plans of going past 1200p resolution for AT LEAST a couple of years.) Then I would get the same performance?

For the most part, yes. A couple of examples:

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1060_gaming_x_3gb_review,13.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1060_gaming_x_3gb_review,19.html

There may be a few DX11/DX12 games where the 1060 will edge out but not by very much. This is standard for different generation GPUs though and why people usually look at an overall benchmark suite average. Now what nobody knows is if the newer tech 1060 will respond better than the 970 to the inevitable DX13 - but that would be like 2020 at the earliest before games start taking advantage of it.

 

[10tacle]

Keep in mind the 6GB 1060 is not just a 3GB 1060 with double the VRAM. It's a different GPU (has more CUDA cores). The 6GB 1060 really should have labeled it the 1060Ti and has quite a boost in price like one as well. But yes, long term the more VRAM you can get, the better. Games are showing they need 4GB VRAM minimum, even at 1080p. I was just answering your direct comparison question.

 

[geofelt]

5770 is a very weak gaming card, barely equal to integrated graphics.
Any of the mentioned upgrades will be a very big improvement.
The GTX970 is a bit stronger and is good for fast action games.
That said, you should be very happy with a GTX1050ti.
It is likely that your FX-6350 is going to hold you back.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

On average, the 1060 3GB is in fact faster than the 970 ... nbot true in all games, but when ya average the 18 AA games in techpowerups test suite, the 3 GB comes out on top

The 1060 6GB is on average 7% faster than the 1060 3GB at 1080p but this has nothing to do with VRAM. The reason the 6Gb is faster is that the 3GB has 1152 shaders and the 6Gb has 1280 shaders. The reason MSI did this is because at 1920 x 108 resolution the amount of VRAM has no impact whatsoever. In fact, if you look at the actual data.... it has no significant effect on any game in Techpowerups 18 AAA Game test suite at any resolution.

if you look at the performance difference between the 3GB and 6GB versions at 1080P, you might conclude "OK, well it has 10% more shaders so that will account for the 7% average performance difference, but hat's just at 1080p.... watch, when we look at 1440p, the 6GB will start to show us why more VRAM is better".

But that doesn't happen. It also doesn't happen at 2160p either. The difference between the 3GB and 6GB model remains pretty consistent (6-8%) throughout whether it's 1080p, 1440p or 2160p.


However, looking at the 1050 Ti, the 970 is significantly (>39%) faster. A few months ago, I would have suggested a RX 470 / Rx 570 instead but the mining craze has drive prices crazy. With Vega's upcoming release we'll see some price pressure applied up at the higher tiers and this has a tendency to push prices down.

If ya not going to spring for the 3 GB 1060, which the data shows no performance impact at any resolution due to VRAM, then I'd wait till the dust settles before buying a card at this point in time.

 

[dragonwolf8504]

All great answers, thinking I may go to a gtx 1060 3GB card though. I really won't be able to save up the money for an upgraded gpu past the price of about $200+ any shipping and if the GTX 1060 would work fine for my needs, considering I'm used to even my Alienware 17's GTX 770M 3GB card. At least the GTX 1060 3GB would be an upgrade over even the 1050ti. I have Amazon Prime too, so I can use that to bump up to the 1060. (I'm selling a couple items to even afford this card.)

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

The GTX 970 is anywhere from 25%-50% faster than a GTX 1050Ti depending on game. The 970 is roughly equal in performance to a 3GB 1060 (but slower than the 6GB 1060). So while it may be a three year old tech GPU now, it still has several more years of life left and the GTX 1050Ti will never catch up to it unless Nvidia stops driver support for the GTX 9xx series which won't happen until the early 2020s (basing this on Nvidia's end of life GPU support history of past generation GPUs).

6GB GTX 1060 > GTX 970/3GB GTX 1060 > GTX 1050Ti.

So if I went with a 1060 3GB card (since I have no plans of going past 1200p resolution for AT LEAST a couple of years.) Then I would get the same performance?

yeah, but 3gbs Vram is low enough. if playing at 1200p, the 6gb would be much better.

Ok, will...I'm used to my old GTX 770M 3GB card...wondering how happy I would be going up to even a 1060 3GB card.

fairly happy massive difference. just keep in mind, its may be a tad too powerful for your CPU, so you may find situations where the CPU will bottleneck the GPU. But they will be limited scenarios, and game dependant. If you sell your 5770 for maybe 20 quid, it might offset the difference between the 3gb and 6gb variants of the GTX 1060

 

[10tacle]

One more thing: cryptominers have started hitting the 6GB 1060 due to shortage of 1070s and 570s/580s and that GPU is priced anywhere from $50-$100 more than what it is really worth (in the US market anyway). The 3GB version is not in their crosshairs.

 

[dragonwolf8504]

On average, the 1060 3GB is in fact faster than the 970 ... nbot true in all games, but when ya average the 18 AA games in techpowerups test suite, the 3 GB comes out on top

The 1060 6GB is on average 7% faster than the 1060 3GB at 1080p but this has nothing to do with VRAM. The reason the 6Gb is faster is that the 3GB has 1152 shaders and the 6Gb has 1280 shaders. The reason MSI did this is because at 1920 x 108 resolution the amount of VRAM has no impact whatsoever. In fact, if you look at the actual data.... it has no significant effect on any game in Techpowerups 18 AAA Game test suite at any resolution.

if you look at the performance difference between the 3GB and 6GB versions at 1080P, you might conclude "OK, well it has 10% more shaders so that will account for the 7% average performance difference, but hat's just at 1080p.... watch, when we look at 1440p, the 6GB will start to show us why more VRAM is better".

But that doesn't happen. It also doesn't happen at 2160p either. The difference between the 3GB and 6GB model remains pretty consistent (6-8%) throughout whether it's 1080p, 1440p or 2160p.


However, looking at the 1050 Ti, the 970 is significantly (>39%) faster. A few months ago, I would have suggested a RX 470 / Rx 570 instead but the mining craze has drive prices crazy. With Vega's upcoming release we'll see some price pressure applied up at the higher tiers and this has a tendency to push prices down.

If ya not going to spring for the 3 GB 1060, which the data shows no performance impact at any resolution due to VRAM, then I'd wait till the dust settles before buying a card at this point in time.

Sprung for the GTX 1060 3GB

This one to be exact: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LW14DG7/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I don't expect to get the highest due to my cpu. But when I'm so used to older cards (The GTX 770M that was in my Alienware which is in fact equal to a GTX 750 ti if I recall toms hardware's guide from a long time ago and pulling the old HD 5770 out of the desktop) then I'm sure to be happy with whatever the 1060 can give me. In time I'll switch out the mobo and cpu for intel or maybe the new Ryzen but for now I'm sinking what I can into a gpu upgrade.