LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Nvidia Pascal invades the mainstream.
Read more.Nvidia Pascal invades the mainstream.
Out of interest how does this compare to the GTX960??
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/evga-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-sc-gaming-4gb-gddr5-graphics-card-768-core-1354mhz-gpu-1468mhz-boost
£165 for this joke of a card that gets wrecked of the 470/1060 at roughly same pricing. Hexus still gives it a glittering review.
Agreed. The 470 is priced around 14 pounds up and beats the crap out of this board...Originally Posted by raven1001
Yes, the value proposition of this card changes drastically. At £139 it's acceptable, and £149 it's not looking great compared to spending a bit more on a low-end 470 (although the failure of the 3GB 1060 to run that benchmark is seriously worrying, and should erase that option from everyone's shopping lists).
At £159 or above, it's simply poor value for money, poor performance per watt, and a definite no-buy. Amazing what £20 can do to a card's value.
So find another £15-20 and get a RX 470?
The review has been updated to take into account actual UK retail pricing.
Cat - I don't currently have a GTX 960 to hand to run some numbers, but if it's any help the last model we had (Gigabyte's GTX 960 WindForce 2X) scored 6,824 in 3DMark Fire Strike and 3,525 in 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme.
CAT-THE-FIFTH (25-10-2016),jimbouk (26-10-2016),Xlucine (26-10-2016)
Thanks.
I guess you guys are not considering the fact that one 1050ti is running at 119w vs. 470's 262w while gaming. That can get expensive over time in some places especially if you have yourself and a few kids gaming away all year for a few years. That will cost you more than $20, especially with kids who play a LOT of hours in the summer months for those years. At over 2x the watts, I expect 2x perf. This card would easily go into an HTPC and not do too bad (though I'd want more, just saying).
Those power consumption figures for both cards aren't correct nobodyspecial. Yes there is a big difference, but the graphs suggest it's between 76 to 81W, not the 143W your claiming. Also a quick rule of thumb the RX 470 is about 150% the performance of the 1050 Ti....I know what I'd be recommending for a build.
In reference the cost of the extra power draw a rough and ready estimate suggests that if you were to game every day for 6 hours, 365 days in the year. The additional cost in electricity would be around £4 to £5...per year.
Last edited by cptwhite_uk; 25-10-2016 at 09:30 PM.
The problem is too many sites have swallowed the Nvidia review guide quotes about power consumption and saving the world to justify an overpriced card(not Hexus but some others),but seem to forget that a slower card needs replacing much more quickly.
The card is fine if you are very PSU limited and can't even install a reasonable PSU or want to build a very small mini-ITX rig. This is probably its greatest strength and why the versions with additional power connectors are a fail.
But to put into context if you normalise FPS/£,a card like the EVGA one tested by Hexus would be more like £220 to £240 to have similar performance to a RX470.
So even with the power savings,it will take you years to actually save money with a GTX1050TI. Plus you can simply run your games at better settings too with an RX470.
Plus,it also shows you people cannot read figures - when has around 260W at the wall even been that much for a whole PC?? A PC with a massively overclocked Core i7 6700K,32GB of RAM,a less efficient high end motherboard,a few SSDs and a 850W PSU. Want that nice big screen - add a few dozen watts to that.
With more budget parts,I suspect the whole system will be closer to 200W.
This is why my last two PSUs have been 450W jobs.
Plus if people want to really save power,the XBox One S consumes well under 100W under load,just saying!
Laptops also tend to consume very little power as many consume under 100W with the screen included.
If you want to save power,desktop PCs are not the way forward IMHO.
Edit!!
To show how ridiculous things have become - a 3KW kettle if boiled for two minutes,consumes as much power as the Hexus test rig under gaming load for nearly 30 minutes.
Then if people don't bother switching off the PC,and it consumes around 50W at idle,for every 5 hours they don't switch the PC off,it consume the equivalent of one hour of gaming.
Plus,also during the summer,most of us don't play as much games,because it is probably better to be outside doing something.
During winter,when you are more likely to game,I wonder where the heat from the PC goes??
Second Edit!!
Why are there no single slot or low profile cards at launch??
Its a criticism I have of the RX460 too.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 26-10-2016 at 12:06 PM.
Single slot? Where? Please tell me one exists....The SC Gaming is nice and small, but given Pascal's multimedia credentials, we imagine there are customers out there pining for, say, a half-height or single-slot take on the GP107 GPU
If the Earth is a sphere how do you travel to the ends of it?
Me too!! Its the same issue I had with the RX460. AMD made this Polaris 11 based card for commercial customers called the WX4100:
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10521/W4100_575px.jpg
The WX5100 uses a cut down Polaris 10 and is short and single slot too:
http://images.anandtech.com/doci/10521/WX5100_575px.jpg
Do we get any for DIY builders?? Nope.
MOAR E-PEEN heatsinks with go faster racing colours.
Could you imagine a single slot low profile GTX1050 or RX460 in something like an ammo-box based mini-ITX build??
It would be awesome!!
Interesting - faster than an RX 460, but definitely still in the same performance class. I'll be very interested in the non-Ti reviews when they land.
Also, up to 1900MHz boost clock when OCed? So much for the 14nm process restricting clock speedsiirc Samsung's 14nm process is shared tech with Glo Fo's? So either Glo Fo's implementation *really* sucks, or AMD's transistor design clocks poorly. Intriguing...
Interesting to see the 950 and 1050ti have almost identical specs in terms of shaders etc, yet the 1050ti has an extra 0.4 billion transistors. Quite a lot of that will be cache, but I suspect there is some extra pipelining & gating going on here to allow the clock speed to boost without the power consumption sky rocketing. Basically, I think their focus on Tegra has given Nvidia a really nice design for desktop use as well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
