Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 & 1050 Ti Review

Nvidia owns the high-end graphics space with its Pascal-based GPUs. AMD is making a big splash in the mainstream market with its Polaris-based cards. Inevitably, the companies’ 14/16 nm processors were bound to overlap. The PC world is perhaps most transfixed by the coming of AMD’s Vega GPUs, which promise performance to rival the top tier of GeForce cards. But that won’t happen until the first half of 2017 (presumably closer to mid-year).

In the nearer term, Nvidia is ready to battle AMD’s 2 GB and 4 GB Radeon RX 460 with its GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti, announced earlier this month. Both models utilize a new GPU called GP107. It’s composed of 3.3 billion transistors and manufactured on a 14 nm FinFET process—notably not TSMC’s 16FF+ node. Although the processor originates from a different foundry, GP107 continues to reflect the Pascal architecture’s basic resource allocation.  

Of course, some of Pascal’s flagship features aren’t as relevant as we venture down into this budget segment. Simultaneous Multi-Projection, for instance, takes geometry data and processes it through as many as 16 projections from one viewport using a special hardware block. Gaming across multiple monitors or through a VR HMD are applications that stand to benefit. However, neither is realistic on a sub-$150 graphics card.

Still, expect GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti to shake up the space between $100 and $150. Nvidia tells us that its vanilla 1050 should start at $110, while the 1050 Ti sells from $140. Incidentally, AMD’s Radeon RX 460 4 GB was supposed to go for $110 as well. Now 2 GB 460s are priced at $110, while the 4 GB model commands at least $130. Hopefully, pressure from GP107 keeps AMD’s board partners a little more honest than they’ve been…provided the 1050s aren’t inflated right out of the gate as well.

GeForce GTX 1050 Ti: Raising The Bar At 75 W

The GeForce GTX 750 Ti was such a big deal back in 2014 because it made 1920x1080 gaming accessible from a 60 W graphics card. It drew all the power it needed through a 16-lane PCIe slot. Some GeForce GTX 1050 Ti cards will repeat that feat by ducking in under a 75 W ceiling, while others purposely step past it and incorporate six-pin power connectors for greater overclocking headroom.

GeForce GTX 1050 Ti employs the aforementioned GP107 in its uncut form. All six of the GPU’s Streaming Multiprocessors are enabled, split between two of what Nvidia calls Graphics Processing Clusters. The four existing Pascal-based chips pack five SMs into a GPC. GP107, in contrast, sports three SMs per GPC.

With 128 single-precision CUDA cores per SM, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti wields a total of 768. Each SM also includes eight texture units (adding up to 48 across the processor), 256 KB of register file capacity, 96 KB of shared memory, and 48 KB of L1/texture cache.

The back-end of GP107 is correspondingly trimmed to reflect the 1050 Ti’s mainstream pedigree aimed at 1920x1080 gaming. Four 32-bit memory controllers provide an aggregate 128-bit data path. Similar to other Pascal-based GPUs, each controller is associated with eight ROPs and 256 KB of L2 cache, adding up to 32 ROPs and 1 MB of cache. Nvidia arms the 1050 Ti with 4 GB of 7 GT/s GDDR5 memory able to move up to 112 GB/s. And the company is quick to point out that Pascal’s memory optimizations improve effective bandwidth compared to prior architectures, too. Adapted from our GTX 1080 coverage: "[GP107's] delta color compression tries to achieve 2:1 savings, and this mode is purportedly enhanced to be usable more often. There’s also a new 4:1 mode that covers cases when per-pixel differences are very small and compressible into even less space. Finally, Pascal has a new 8:1 mode that combines 4:1 constant compression to 2x2 blocks with 2:1 compression of the differences between them."

Nvidia’s efforts to down-scale GP107 result in a design with 60% of the CUDA cores and texture units as GeForce GTX 1060’s GP106. It also gets two-thirds of the faster card’s ROPs and memory bus width. But whereas the 1060’s processor operates at a 1506 MHz base clock rate, 1050 Ti starts at 1290 MHz. Further, the 1050 Ti’s 1392 MHz GPU Boost frequency is ~75% of the 1060’s.

Given the overclocking headroom our sample demonstrated (more on this shortly) and GP107’s higher stock voltage compared to GP106, it seems as though GeForce GTX 1050 Ti’s factory spec is determined by the board’s 75 W TDP rating. Similar to GeForce GTX 750 Ti, Nvidia wanted this card to get its power from a 16-lane PCIe slot, and exceeding that figure with higher voltage/frequency would have required more juice from another source. Partners that build 1050 Tis with six-pin connectors should be able to extract quite a bit more performance through higher clock rates, we're guessing.

According to Nvidia, GeForce GTX 1050 Ti cards will start at $140, making them at least $10 more expensive than most 4 GB Radeon RX 460s. If we’ve learned one thing from this year’s graphics card launches, however, it’s that suggested pricing is just that, and GPU manufacturers are quick to disavow themselves of responsibility when the card vendors charge more.

GeForce GTX 1050: Dialed-Down, But Still 1080p-Capable

Nvidia hopes to see the pared-down GeForce GTX 1050 selling for $110, which puts it squarely up against the Radeon RX 460 (AMD’s 2 GB cards go for $110, while the 4 GB model starts around $130). Dimensionally, our 1050 Ti and 1050 samples from MSI look identical. All of the differences between them are hidden by a dual-slot heat sink.

For starters, the 1050’s GP107 processor has one of its SMs disabled, cutting 128 CUDA cores and eight texture units. What’s left is a GPU with 640 CUDA cores and 40 texture units. Nvidia makes up for some of that resource loss—and exploits the drop in power consumption—with slightly higher clock rates. GTX 1050’s base frequency is 1354 MHz; the GPU Boost rating jumps to 1455 MHz.

Like the 1050 Ti, GeForce GTX 1050 exposes 32 ROPs and the same 1 MB of L2. Instead of 4 GB on its aggregate 128-bit bus, though, Nvidia deploys 2 GB at the same 7 GT/s. Theoretical maximum bandwidth remains the same at 112 GB/s.

GeForce GTX 1050 should be quicker than GTX 950, one of our favorite models for 1080p gaming. That 90 W card previously sold for $140 and required one six-pin power connector. More performance for less money, without the six-pin connector allows the 1050 to shine in environments the 950 wasn’t as well-suited to. Moreover, GP107 incorporates a lot of fixed-function media acceleration the GeForce GTX 750 Ti didn’t have, such as HEVC decode at up to 4K60p and VP9 decode.

HTPC enthusiasts can expect to wait a while for GeForce GTX 1050 availability, though. Whereas the 1050 Ti should show up for sale right away, Nvidia’s guidance suggests the cheaper version won’t land until the second week of November. There won’t be any reference (Founders Edition) designs. All of the 1050 and 1050 Ti cards will come from board partners, so pay close attention to specifications, particularly if you want a model without a power connector.

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
Comment from the forums
    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