Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 & 1050 Ti Review

Ashes of the Singularity, BattleField 1, Doom & GTA V

Ashes of the Singularity

After a driver update, the Radeon RX 470 and 460 are notably faster than they were in our RX 460 review. Of course, the 470’s advantage is exaggerated given Asus’ aggressive overclock compared to our old Sapphire board. But even in the face of a speed-up, the RX 460 succumbs to both 1050s. That’s bad news for AMD, since AotS is a showcase of what its GCN architecture can do fully utilized.

At least in this first benchmark, the GTX 1050’s victory over EVGA’s tuned GeForce GTX 950 is significant. Not only is the 1050 faster, but it’s also less expensive and devoid of the eight-pin power connector on EVGA’s flagship previous-gen model.

We’ll also point out that Nvidia may have a tough time convincing gamers to pay almost 30% more money for 128 extra CUDA cores and 4 GB of memory when the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti’s advantage ducks in under 10%.

Battlefield 1

The story in Battlefield 1 looks a lot like Ashes: mainly, the RX 470 enjoys a nice big lead, GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti beat AMD’s Radeon RX 460, and the 1050 Ti fails to distinguish itself.

We’re still running through BF1 to identify a better sequence than the opening of Through Mud and Blood. For now, though, that’s what we have to work with. You can clearly identify the first third of our test, where the tank drives itself and we keep its turret pointing straight ahead, a middle section where the tank stops, and a more intense “assault” passage where the on-screen action induces particularly large frame time spikes on the GeForce cards. AMD’s cards appear largely immune, though they encounter smaller peaks through more of our run.

Doom

An almost-14% advantage is GeForce GTX 1050 Ti’s largest over the 1050 thus far. But a bigger win in Doom is dulled by the Radeon RX 460 wedging itself between Nvidia’s new models.

Interestingly, it looks like the frame time issues we were seeing from AMD and Nvidia worked themselves out over the past three months. All four of the boards we retested using new drivers post much lower frame time variance through our benchmark.

GTA V

Switching over from APIs like DirectX 12 and Vulkan to DirectX 11 has a definite impact on our results. AMD’s Radeon RX 470 continues topping the chart, but its lead over GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is under 11%. In turn, the 1050 Ti is just 10% faster than GeForce GTX 1050. The value proposition associated with each step up isn’t very compelling when you consider what those cards cost.

We mentioned that GeForce GTX 1050’s ability to hold off the Radeon RX 460 in Ashes and BF1 was significant—those DX12 titles facilitate better utilization of AMD’s architecture. DirectX 11 isn’t as friendly to the Radeons, and as such the Radeon RX 460 appears near the bottom of our GTA V chart. Though new drivers help a little bit, even a vanilla GTX 1050 leads by almost 45%.

In absolute terms, the GeForce GTX 1050s experience lower frame times through our benchmark sequence. However, they do encounter greater variance through the first 10 or 15 seconds of this test. None of that was perceptible as decreased smoothness on-screen, but it’s still interesting to see both cards demonstrating the same behavior.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards

MORE: Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

MORE: All Graphics Content

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
85 comments
    Your comment
  • Corwin65
    Seeing pricing at $200 for the 1050 Ti.
    5
  • ingtar33
    yeah, no way in heck the 1050 sells at 110, probably will be much closer to 150-170
    7
  • elbert
    Leaks suggested the 1050ti is as fast as the 960 and R9 280. I would love to have seen if that was true. My 280 is getting old and needs an upgrade. Any chance those can be added to the benchmarks?
    1
  • Onus
    I wonder if a low-profile single-slot GTX1050 will come out...
    4
  • Corwin65
    Anonymous said:


    If you're in the market snag one of those before prices jump.
    1
  • cdrkf
    @Elbert no way the 1050ti is going to best the 280, it's just not got enough resources behind it.

    You'd be far better looking at an RX 470 / 480 card or one of the 1060 cards imo. The only advantage to the 1050ti over your current card is lower power consumption, although the 280 isn't that bad anyhow.
    2
  • artk2219
    All I am seeing is a nice pricewar brewing for the midrange segment. The RX 460 needs to drop to 90 to 95. and the 470 should ideally drop to 150 to 160. On Nvidias end the 1050 is just fine at 110, but the ti needs to drop to 130 to 135. Either way, i would save a little more and take a used R9 290 over any of them, but thats me. The only real reason to be crazy excited about the 1050, is if your limited to a single slot case and need a low power but decent performance card. In which case the 1050's are an excellent option, we really could use a nice single slot card.
    1
  • spdragoo
    @Elbert: Didn't find direct comparisons to the R9 280, but Techspot's review showed benchmark comparisons to the R9 380 (which is pretty much on par with the 280):

    http://www.techspot.com/review/1269-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050/

    @CDRKF: Technically, you're correct: the GTX 1050Ti didn't (consistently) put in a better performance than the GTX 960 or R9 380. However, there were a couple of games that it beat them in (beating the 960 more often than the 380), & even when it didn't beat them its performance was right in the ballpark. To me, that says that either the 1050 or 1050Ti would make an excellent card for someone wanting to replace a broken R9 280/280 or GTX 960, but doesn't have the budget for a GTX 1060 or RX 470/480, & especially a good choice for someone whose system (*cough* OEM garbage *cough*) doesn't allow them to use a GPU that requires PCIe power connectors...as long as they're not expecting to game any higher than 1080p resolutions.
    0
  • elbert
    Anonymous said:
    @Elbert: Didn't find direct comparisons to the R9 280, but Techspot's review showed benchmark comparisons to the R9 380 (which is pretty much on par with the 280):

    http://www.techspot.com/review/1269-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050/

    @CDRKF: Technically, you're correct: the GTX 1050Ti didn't (consistently) put in a better performance than the GTX 960 or R9 380. However, there were a couple of games that it beat them in (beating the 960 more often than the 380), & even when it didn't beat them its performance was right in the ballpark. To me, that says that either the 1050 or 1050Ti would make an excellent card for someone wanting to replace a broken R9 280/280 or GTX 960, but doesn't have the budget for a GTX 1060 or RX 470/480, & especially a good choice for someone whose system (*cough* OEM garbage *cough*) doesn't allow them to use a GPU that requires PCIe power connectors...as long as they're not expecting to game any higher than 1080p resolutions.

    Thanks the 380 is a rebadged 285 and a bit more powerful than the old 280 3GB. The 960 tho in those test are right on par with the old 280 so yup the 1050ti is a step up.
    Thanks cdrkr for the 470 suggestion. I noticed AMD lowered the price to $169 so now im going to have to rethink my upgrade choices.
    0
  • adgjlsfhk
    I would be really interested to see machine learning benchmarks on these cards, the 1050ti looks like it might be great for budget for to the high amount of VRAM
    0
  • InvalidError
    Anonymous said:
    The only real reason to be crazy excited about the 1050, is if your limited to a single slot case and need a low power but decent performance card.

    Casual gamers like me who cannot be bothered to spend more than $150 on a GPU they'll use for gaming only for a few hours per month can be excited about the RX460 and GTX1050(Ti) bumping performance under $150 up by a few notches too.

    I'm still running a 1GB HD5770, waiting for sub-$150 GPU to offer enough of a performance bump for me to bother with upgrading. Right now, it looks like the GTX1050 will be it if prices settle near its MSRP, with the 1050Ti being a 'maybe' if the premium gets reduced to $20 before I make my final decision between upgrading or skipping the current generation.
    3
  • rush21hit
    Wasn't expecting the 1050Ti to be nearly twice faster than my 750Ti. Sick awesome!
    Already planned to buy 460, but considering shadowplay, this one will earn my money.

    Any word on low profile model from any vendor on this?
    -1
  • storageguru
    Thanks for the review it helped me make my choice..

    Just made a purchase for the 1050ti evga to replace an AMD 5770(had since 2009 I think) so that I can buy and play battlefield 1. I went with the 4GB though because I saw reviews where the game can use 2.7GB in 1080p play. I'm planning to use DX11 vs DX12for battlefield as the Nvidia should get better using that(think I can toggle to use either)..I hope

    My main reason pick the Nvidia over AMD is to lower my TDP. So in my case I'll be going from ~110W to ~75W :) Next buy will probably be a Zen cpu if the wattage is much lower than my FX8320. Just wanted to share..
    0
  • Leiska
    Look at the review from Guru3d: http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-geforce-gtx-1050-and-1050-ti-gaming-x-review,1.html

    In their tests the 1050 and 1050Ti are way further apart in performance. The 1050 consistently loses to the RX 460, while the 1050Ti beats both, often significantly so.
    2
  • InvalidError
    Anonymous said:
    Look at the review from Guru3d: http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-geforce-gtx-1050-and-1050-ti-gaming-x-review,1.html

    In their tests the 1050 and 1050Ti are way further apart in performance.

    Because Guru3D ran their tests at very high or ultra presets where both 1050s are under 40fps most of the time even at 1080p instead of aiming for detail levels that yield frame rates people would actually want to play at. Once you reduce details to achieve a more readily sustainable 60fps, the memory requirement drops, the 1050Ti's extra 2GB VRAM becomes mostly unnecessary and the performance gap with the 1050 gets that much narrower.
    4
  • artk2219
    Anonymous said:
    Anonymous said:
    The only real reason to be crazy excited about the 1050, is if your limited to a single slot case and need a low power but decent performance card.

    Casual gamers like me who cannot be bothered to spend more than $150 on a GPU they'll use for gaming only for a few hours per month can be excited about the RX460 and GTX1050(Ti) bumping performance under $150 up by a few notches too.

    I'm still running a 1GB HD5770, waiting for sub-$150 GPU to offer enough of a performance bump for me to bother with upgrading. Right now, it looks like the GTX1050 will be it if prices settle near its MSRP, with the 1050Ti being a 'maybe' if the premium gets reduced to $20 before I make my final decision between upgrading or skipping the current generation.



    I'm sorry i dont mean to make it sound like you have to spend more than $150 dollars on a GPU, what i was trying to say is that if you are looking to spend that much, you can get more gpu for your buck if you go used. For the money youre spending on these GPU's you could probably find a used 290 on craigslist, ebay, or hardwareswap on reddit. Many of those used GPU's may never have been registered, and as such still probably have their original warranty's from some manufacturers, but i grant that that is a gamble many may not be willing to take. But I suppose that until the RX 470 hits the 150ish mark, it looks like the 1050 or 1050ti is the GPU to beat in the new market.
    1
  • none12345
    "Because Guru3D ran their tests at very high or ultra presets where both 1050s are under 40fps most of the time even at 1080p instead of aiming for detail levels that yield frame rates people would actually want to play at. Once you reduce details to achieve a more readily sustainable 60fps, the memory requirement drops, the 1050Ti's extra 2GB VRAM becomes mostly unnecessary and the performance gap with the 1050 gets that much narrower."

    Different strokes and all. I personally would prefer to run a game on ultra details at 40 fps then medium at 60 fps. This is the choice i make constantly when i play games. If i drop down into the 20s, sure ill start lowering details. But 40 is plenty for me to still be rocking max details. Note i have a 144hz monitor, if i was stuck on a crappy 60hz things might be different, but i wouldn't touch a monitor with only 60hz.

    I think both tests are valid tho. Some people prefer detail over fps, and some prefer fps, over detail. Showing only medium settings or only high settings is hiding important details from the customers.

    I personally wouldn't touch a 2gb card in this day tho. 3GB would be much easier to swallow, but my limit as of now is 4GB minimum for 1080p(id possibly consider 3gb but it has to beat on price/perf by a lot to consider it).

    -----------

    These cards are about where i expected them. Honestly the 460 is doing better then i expected if you take the linked guru3d benchmarks. I expected it to look like toms benchmarks. I expected the 460 to lose to the 1050ti and the 470 to easily beat, and that's what we got. AMD currently has too large of a gap between its 460 and 470; nvidia currently has too large a gap between its 1060(3gb) and 1050ti.

    I'd take a 460 over a 1050, because i prefer to crank up details, and 2gb doesn't cut it. And id take a 470 over a 1050ti(not much more money for a lot more performance). But i prefer to buy graphics cards in a higher performance tier then these cards.
    2
  • jeffredo
    Not a much of an increase over the GTX 950 as I'd expected, although its does it for less money and less power consumption, so that's good.
    0