Tag Archives: GeForce GTX 1050

The GeForce GTX 1050 & 1050 Ti Performance Comparison

The GeForce GTX 1050 & 1050 Ti Performance Comparison

On 20 October 2016, NVIDIA officially launched the new GeForce GTX 1050 and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti graphics cards. Built around the new NVIDIA GP107 GPU, the two new GeForce cards are designed for entry-level and eSports gaming at very attractive price points of US$99 and US$139 respectively. But just how fast are they? Find out for yourself in our GeForce GTX 1050 & GTX 1050 Ti performance comparison!

 

The Graphics Cards Compared

In this comparison, we will take a look at six different graphics cards launched in 2016 – 3 from AMD, and 3 from NVIDIA. We will pit the GeForce GTX 1050 against the Radeon RX 460, and the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti against the Radeon RX 470 (Review). We also included the higher-end Radeon RX 480 (Review) and GeForce GTX 1060 (Review) in this comparison.

SpecificationsRadeon RX 460GeForce GTX 1050GeForce GTX 1050 TiRadeon RX 470Radeon RX 480GeForce GTX 1060
Texture Units56404812814480
ROPs163232323248
Core Speed1090 MHz1354 MHz1290 MHz926 MHz1120 MHz1506 MHz
Boost Speed1200 MHz1455 MHz1392 MHz1206 MHz1266 MHz1708 MHz
Texture Fill Rate (Max)67.2 GT/s54.2 GT/s61.9 GT/s154.4 GT/s182.3 GT/s136.6 GT/s
Pixel Fill Rate (Max)19.2 GP/s46.6 GP/s44.5 GP/s38.6 GP/s40.5 GP/s82.0 GP/s
Memory Bus Width128-bits128-bits128-bits256-bits256-bits192-bits
Graphics Memory4 GB GDDR52 GB GDDR54 GB GDDR54 GB GDDR58 GB GDDR56 GB GDDR5
Memory Speed1750 MHz1752 MHz1752 MHz1650 MHz1750 MHz2000 MHz
Memory Bandwidth112 GB/s112 GB/s112 GB/s211 GB/s224 GB/s192 GB/s
TDP75 W75 W75 W120 W150 W120 W
Current PriceUS$ 99US$ 99US$ 139US$ 169US$ 239 (8 GB)US$ 249

 

Benchmarking Notes

Our graphics benchmarking test bed has the following specifications :

[adrotate banner=”4″]

Operating System : Microsoft Windows 10 64-bit

Processor : Intel Core i7 6700K processor running at 4.0 GHz

Motherboard : ASRock Z170 Extreme4

Memory : 8 GB DDR4-2133 memory (dual-channel)

Storage : 240 GB HyperX Savage SSD

Monitor : Dell P2415Q Ultra HD Monitor

We used the GeForce driver version 375.63 for the three NVIDIA graphics cards, and the Radeon Software 16.9.2 driver for the three AMD graphics cards used in our tests.

Okay, let’s get on with the GeForce GTX 1050 & 1050 Ti performance comparison!

Next Page > 3DMark DirectX 12 & Direct 11 Benchmark Results

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


3DMark DirectX 12 Benchmark (2560 x 1440)

3DMark Time Spy is a new DirectX 12 benchmark that supports new API features like asynchronous compute, explicit multi-adapter, and multi-threading.

The GeForce GTX 1050 is virtually equivalent to the Radeon RX 460 in performance, with the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti delivering 23% better performance. The Radeon RX 470 was 60% faster than the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, and twice as fast as the GeForce GTX 1050.

 

3DMark (1920 x 1080)

For Direct 11 performance, we started testing the graphics cards using 3DMark at the most common gaming resolution – 1920 x 1080.

The GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti did better in DirectX 11. In this test, they were 17.6% and 27.4% faster than the Radeon RX 460 respectively.

The Radeon RX 470, on the other hand, was now 48% faster than the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, and 67% faster than the GeForce GTX 1050.

[adrotate banner=”5″]

 

3DMark (2560 x 1440)

Then we took 3DMark up a notch to the resolution of 2560 x 1440. Let’s take a look!

Surprisingly, the GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti did even better at this resolution. Despite having only 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, the GeForce GTX 1050 was 24% faster than the Radeon RX 460. The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti was now 34% faster than the Radeon RX 460.

They also edged a little closer in performance to the Radeon RX 470, which was now 47% faster than the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, and 60% faster than the GeForce GTX 1050.

 

3DMark (3840 x 2160)

This is torture, even for the GeForce GTX 980 Ti and the GeForce GTX 1070!

It is definitely a very, very bad idea to play any game at this resolution on the GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti. Especially the GeForce GTX 1050, which only has 2 GB of memory. In this resolution, the Radeon RX 460 (which has 4 GB of memory) was actually 7% faster! The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti was now 33% faster than the Radeon RX 460.

The Radeon RX 470 was now 49% faster than the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, and twice as fast as the GeForce GTX 1050.

Next Page > Ashes of the Singularity & Warhammer Benchmark Results

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Ashes of the Singularity (1920 x 1080)

We tested Ashes of the Singularity in the DirectX 12 mode, which supports the new Asynchronous Compute feature. We started with the full HD resolution.

The GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti were 6% and 17% faster than the Radeon RX 460 respectively. All three delivered playable frame rates of over 30 fps at this resolution.

 

Ashes of the Singularity (2560 x 1440)

We then took Ashes of the Singularity up a notch to the resolution of 2560 x 1440. Let’s see how the cards fare…

Only the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti was fast enough to deliver a playable frame rate above 30 fps at this resolution. The Radeon RX 460 was actually slightly (2%) faster than the GeForce GTX 1050, probably due to its larger memory size.

[adrotate banner=”5″]

 

Warhammer (1920 x 1080)

This chart shows you the minimum and maximum frame rates, as well as the average frame rate, recorded by Total War : Warhammer‘s internal DirectX 12 benchmark.

The GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti were 2% and 15% faster than the Radeon RX 460 respectively. All three delivered playable frame rates of about 40 fps at this resolution.

 

Warhammer (2560 x 1440)

This chart shows you the minimum and maximum frame rates, as well as the average frame rate, recorded by Total War : Warhammer‘s internal DirectX 12 benchmark.

The GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti did better at this resolution, coming in 9% and 20% faster than the Radeon RX 460 respectively. Only the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti delivered (barely) playable frame rates at this resolution.

Next Page > The Witcher 3 & Fallout 4 Benchmark Results

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


The Witcher 3 (1920 x 1080)

This chart shows you the minimum and maximum frame rates, as well as the average frame rate, that FRAPS recorded in The Witcher 3.

The GeForce GTX 1050 and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti did well in this game, coming in 17% and 32% faster than the Radeon RX 460 respectively. The two new GeForce cards delivered reasonably playable frame rates.

 

The Witcher 3 (2560 x 1440)

This chart shows you the minimum and maximum frame rates, as well as the average frame rate, that FRAPS recorded in The Witcher 3.

The GeForce GTX 1050 and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti maintained their performance advantage over the Radeon RX 460, but their frame rates were poor. Definitely not a good idea to play The Witcher 3 at 1440p with these cards.

[adrotate banner=”5″]

 

Fallout 4 (1920 x 1080)

This chart shows you the minimum and maximum frame rates, as well as the average frame rate, that FRAPS recorded in Fallout 4.

The GeForce GTX 1050 and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti performed very well in Fallout 4, both delivering 20% better performance than the Radeon RX 460. This is the perfect resolution for all three cards.

 

Fallout 4 (2560 x 1440)

This chart shows you the minimum and maximum frame rates, as well as the average frame rate, that FRAPS recorded in Fallout 4.

Surprisingly, the GeForce GTX 1050 and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti extended their lead over the Radeon RX 460, with 22% and 24% better performance respectively. Both new GeForce cards actually delivered playable frame rates at this resolution.

Next Page > Our Verdict, Lowest Prices

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!


Our Verdict

Hitherto, AMD had a real advantage in the entry-level and eSports gaming market with their Radeon RX 460 and Radeon RX 470 graphics cards. Priced at US$109 and US$179 respectively (at launch), they were much more affordable options for gaming at 1080p or lower resolutions.

That changed with the launch of the GeForce GTX 1050 and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti graphics cards.

The GeForce GTX 1050 was targeted squarely at the Radeon RX 460, with the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti offering slightly better performance and more graphics memory for those who can afford an extra US$40.

AMD is cognisant of the danger the new GeForce cards pose. So they preemptively slashed the prices of their Radeon RX 460 and Radeon RX 470 cards to make them more competitive. Did they succeed?

GeForce GTX 1050

Both the GeForce GTX 1050 and the Radeon RX 460 are priced at US$99. However, the GeForce GTX 1050 either matches the Radeon RX 460 in performance, or outperforms it by up to 22%. It does this despite having only 2 GB of memory.

[adrotate banner=”4″]

So if you are looking for a graphics card at the US$99 price point, the obvious choice is the GeForce GTX 1050.

GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is roughly 10-15% faster than the GeForce GTX 1050, and has twice as much graphics memory. However, that is a limited advantage since it is still best used for 1080p gaming.

If you can cough up the extra US$40, you might as well cough up an extra US$30 to get the newly-repriced Radeon RX 470. That will buy you 45-70% better performance, enough for 1440p gaming.

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support our work by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!