Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050/1050Ti presentation slides leak out

[HEXUS]

Slides include pricing and performance indicators for popular games.

Read more.

[cptwhite_uk]

I wonder why they didn't include a Geforce 3 Ti500 in the comparison, it would have shown the 1050 Ti absolutely stomping all over it.

Seriously, comparing it to a 650? 3 generations old and no longer even available to purchase for quite some time...performance must be pretty lackluster.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-page...review,12.html

Suggests a GTX950 @ 1920x1200 with a mixture of high / very high settings was capable of 47fps, factor in the slightly higher pixel density (which looking at the other resolutions the game scales very evenly). We can approximate a GTX950 would push 52fps @ 1920x1080....reduce the settings to medium and you'll probably be near 60fps I would have thought, maybe more. The 1050 Ti is achieving 62fps

Looks like you're going to get slightly lower power (10-15W?), similar pricing (albeit with 4Gb RAM), and unless memory is bottlenecked, maybe a few more FPS....hardly inspiring.

[maxp779]

I wonder why they didn't include a Geforce 3 Ti500 in the comparison, it would have shown the 1050 Ti absolutely stomping all over it.

Seriously, comparing it to a 650? 3 generations old and no longer even available to purchase for quite some time...performance must be pretty lackluster.

I think its a good thing. A lot of people don't upgrade very often and those kind of people may well opt for a 1050Ti card as they're not hardcore gamers. Ive been sat on an R9 280X for ages now, and its just a rebranded 7970. A 4 year old design. Its always good to see how the thing I currently own stacks up to the latest and greatest, I personally upgrade when I can get 2x the performance for a reasonable price.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AMD has given Nvidia an easy gap as the consumer RX460 cards don't use a full Polaris 11 GPU - it has 896 shaders instead of the full 1024 shaders.

I think its a good thing. A lot of people don't upgrade very often and those kind of people may well opt for a 1050Ti card as they're not hardcore gamers. Ive been sat on an R9 280X for ages now, and its just a rebranded 7970. A 4 year old design. Its always good to see how the thing I currently own stacks up to the latest and greatest, I personally upgrade when I can get 2x the performance for a reasonable price.

It won't be anywhere near to 2X over an R9 280X. An R9 280X is around R9 380/R9 380X level which means it is a bit faster overall than a GTX960. The GTX1050TI looks more like R9 380/R9 380X level at most. If you want 2X over your current card you need to get a RX480 8GB or GTX1060 6GB at least.

[DanceswithUnix]

AMD has given Nvidia an easy gap as the consumer RX460 cards don't use a full Polaris 11 GPU - it has 896 shaders instead of the full 1024 shaders.

Unless AMD cut the price of the 470 to make that the competition: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-47...r-gtx-1050-ti/

[scaryjim]

Interestingly I can't find any reviews that tested the RX 460 on medium settings in GTA V or GoW, but I have found a couple of interesting results:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2630-gears-4-pc-benchmark-updated-with-ultra-high-settings
Tests GoW at high but includes an average scaling for High to Medium (116%) which would give the RX 460 60fps (behind the GTX 1050, but pretty good).

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-radeon-rx-460,review-33628-3.html
Tests GTA V on High settings, gives the RX 460 51.6fps (interestingly, that's identical to the GoW result above!), but gives the GTX 950 68fps on high, while the GTX 1050 manages only 62fps on Medium...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Unless AMD cut the price of the 470 to make that the competition: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-rx-47...r-gtx-1050-ti/

True,but its a more expensive card to make. I suspect if the 4GB RX460 had a full Polaris 11 GPU,it would be competitive with a GTX1050TI apart from power consumption.

OTH,not complaining if the RX470 drops down in price.

Interestingly I can't find any reviews that tested the RX 460 on medium settings in GTA V or GoW, but I have found a couple of interesting results:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-benc...-high-settings
Tests GoW at high but includes an average scaling for High to Medium (116%) which would give the RX 460 60fps (behind the GTX 1050, but pretty good).

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ra...w-33628-3.html
Tests GTA V on High settings, gives the RX 460 51.6fps (interestingly, that's identical to the GoW result above!), but gives the GTX 950 68fps on high, while the GTX 1050 manages only 62fps on Medium...

Have you noticed that the GTX750TI and GTX750 were 60W TDP cards and the GTX1050 and GTX1050TI have gone upto 75W??

I suspect the GTX1050 is more a GTX750 or GTX750TI replacement than a GTX950 one.

[scaryjim]

... Have you noticed that the GTX750TI and GTX750 were 60W TDP cards and the GTX1050 and GTX1050TI have gone upto 75W??

I suspect the GTX1050 is more a GTX750 or GTX750TI replacement than a GTX950 one.

Almost certainly true, although I'd hope the 1050 Ti can keep up with a GTX 950, given it has the same number of shaders, clocks faster, and is a more recent generation of the architecture....

But it certainly looks to me like nvidia is playing hard and fast with its market segments again. If the GTX 1050 beats out the GTX 950 consistently I'll be surprised. Then again, if it draws anything like 75W I'll also be surprised - it's less shaders than a GTX 950, and with a process shrink it shouldn't really be getting anywhere near 75W. Plus lets not forget that when the bus-powered GTX 950s turned up in te RX 460 reviews it was pretty obvious that they were hitting their power target and significantly under-performing, comparitively speaking. The GTX 1050 shouldn't have that problem, so performance should at least be consistent.

Wonder if there's any leeway for partners to stick power connectors on their GTX 1050 Ti cards....?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Almost certainly true, although I'd hope the 1050 Ti can keep up with a GTX 950, given it has the same number of shaders, clocks faster, and is a more recent generation of the architecture....

But it certainly looks to me like nvidia is playing hard and fast with its market segments again. If the GTX 1050 beats out the GTX 950 consistently I'll be surprised. Then again, if it draws anything like 75W I'll also be surprised - it's less shaders than a GTX 950, and with a process shrink it shouldn't really be getting anywhere near 75W. Plus lets not forget that when the bus-powered GTX 950s turned up in te RX 460 reviews it was pretty obvious that they were hitting their power target and significantly under-performing, comparitively speaking. The GTX 1050 shouldn't have that problem, so performance should at least be consistent.

Wonder if there's any leeway for partners to stick power connectors on their GTX 1050 Ti cards....?

It depends if the rumours that they are using GF 14NM is true.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Looks like Samsung is making the GPU:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10768/...50-ti-gtx-1050

Apparently they might be hitting their TDP budgets at 75W.

Suffice it to say, tapping another fab is a very big deal. There’s no second-sourcing here – GP107 is only being made on Samsung’s 14nm process and GP106+ only on TSMC’s 16nm process – but splitting orders like this may just as well be new territory for NVIDIA. As this is just a product announcement NVIDIA hasn’t said anything about the change in fabs, so let your imagination go wild here, but it definitely has some ramifications. I really need to get the GTX 1050 cards in house and on the testbed to figure out the full ramifications of this, but I think the most important change here is that a new process from a new vendor means that the voltage/frequency curve we’ve come to know with TSMC 16nm and Pascal has essentially been thrown out the window.

This in turn may explain the clockspeeds of the GTX 1050 cards. All of the other desktop GeForce 10-series cards have an official boost clock of 1600MHz+, with all but one of those cards being 1700Mhz+. The massive jump in clockspeed relative to Maxwell 2 is one of the signature elements of the Pascal architecture, and a major factor driving the significant performance gains of this generation compared to the last. The GTX 1050 series, by comparison, is only rated to boost up to 1455MHz for the GTX 1050, and lower still for the GTX 1050 Ti at 1392MHz.

Given that these are power-constrained cards, the final specifications of the cards are bound by a larger number of variables than usual – power curves, attainable frequency range, and now total power consumption – so I’m not even going to try to insinuate that the lower clockspeeds are solely a function of the change in fabs. However it’s very important to keep in mind that these lower clockspeeds come with a sometimes sizable increase in TDP relative to the GTX 750 series; instead of 55W/60W cards, we have 75W cards. So to use the fully enabled GTX 1050 Ti as an anchor point, power consumption has gone up 15W (25%) for a 28% increase in the boost clock, 1 more SM (20%), and somewhat decoupled from this, the doubled ROP count.

It’s telling then that NVIDIA has informed the press that the higher TDP cards with an external power connector are going to have much higher boost clocks. Whatever is going on under the hood, power plays a big part, and at a TDP limit of 75W, GP107 isn’t getting all the room it needs to stretch. Meanwhile it’s also noteworthy that NVIDIA’s own marketing materials call for GTX 1050 to have a 3x performance increase over GTX 650, and only a bit over 50% increase over GTX 750 Ti.

[uBronan]

Indeed lol the difference with the older cards is not that great as people believe they are.
Sure the new series are faster and use lesser power but the overall performance is really not that big.
I am actually still using my Inno3D gtx 780 heruclez beast which runs crappy because nvidia screws the older models with the drivers. When i revert back to win 7 my games run instant much better with the ancient driver in the 2xx series. So the 3xx series are probably only good for 9x0 and 10x0 series. I sure as hell see a massive drop in dx9 and dx11 games when using the 3xx drivers in w10 x64.
Still i am able to ashes and a heavily modded skyrim in very high and ultra settings with this no so much older big beast. I actually have to limit the game to 60 fps because its going near 125 fps and higher even this settings.

[Lord Midas]

I wonder why they didn't include a Geforce 3 Ti500 in the comparison, it would have shown the 1050 Ti absolutely stomping all over it.

I wish older cards were compared more often. I have a GTX460 768MB. Currently runs Forza Horizon 3 (when it eventually loads) at about 1 frame every 20 seconds.
Like Maxp779 says, not everyone is on modern cards (money). But when it comes to upgrade its nice to see what comparison to older cards is like, not just with the previous generational jump.