Or if you want a GPU without auxiliary power supply connection, something not achievable with the RX470.
Cheers
Nvidia Pascal Reviews [1080XP, 1080ti, 1080, 1070ti, 1070, 1060, 1050, and 1030]
- Thread starter Love_In_Rio
- Start date
Cheers
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
But at the RX470 price tier you might as well look at the GTX 1060's. It's obvious that the RX470 and GTX 1050 are not meant as competitive products, but the GTX 1050's are filling a void between the RX470 and RX 460.
Last edited by a moderator:
The GTX1060 3GBs you mean? No thank you. 4GB is the bare minimum for an upgrade now. The GTX1060 6GB is quite a bit more expensive already.
Well, its true I can get a GTX1060 3GB for same price as RX470 and it is around 20% faster. The 3GB do bug me though... Choices, choices...
Last edited:
People buying in this price segment are price sensitive, they will buy cards that will fit their budget and they won't stretch their budget.
This is why the 750ti lasted as long as it did and sold as well as it did. Performance wise it wasn't a great card, just did the same stuff the 660ti (which was very close to the same price at the time I bought the 750ti within 10 bucks) did, but at a lower power consumption. That was the reason I got one for my media server was because it was inexpensive and I didn't need a power connector for it.
If I was getting it for a half way decent gaming system, I wouldn't even look at anything less than a x60 or AMD's case x70 card.
The 1050ti looks to be a good buy for light gaming, nothing more, and people that don't game much, would they need the extra horsepower at the extra cost of the 47x? Probably not.
This is why the 750ti lasted as long as it did and sold as well as it did. Performance wise it wasn't a great card, just did the same stuff the 660ti (which was very close to the same price at the time I bought the 750ti within 10 bucks) did, but at a lower power consumption. That was the reason I got one for my media server was because it was inexpensive and I didn't need a power connector for it.
If I was getting it for a half way decent gaming system, I wouldn't even look at anything less than a x60 or AMD's case x70 card.
The 1050ti looks to be a good buy for light gaming, nothing more, and people that don't game much, would they need the extra horsepower at the extra cost of the 47x? Probably not.
Last edited:
I currently have a GTX 750 Ti as well, but I honestly expected a bit more from the GTX 1050 Ti.
EDIT - I think you are confusing GTX660 Ti for GTX650 Ti Boost. The GTX750 Ti was nowhere near the GTX660, much less the Ti version!
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_750_Ti/25.html
What if offered was performance on the level of GF100 under 75W, which was astounding! The GTX1050 Ti is very far away from repeating this feat, being nowhere near a GTX780 unfortunately.
EDIT - I think you are confusing GTX660 Ti for GTX650 Ti Boost. The GTX750 Ti was nowhere near the GTX660, much less the Ti version!
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_750_Ti/25.html
What if offered was performance on the level of GF100 under 75W, which was astounding! The GTX1050 Ti is very far away from repeating this feat, being nowhere near a GTX780 unfortunately.
well I expected the regular 1050 to loose to the 460 in performance, that didn't happen lol, and surprisingly this time, nV did it right, they increased their perf/watt in their lower end segment, which they weren't able to do with Maxwell 2, not only that their 1050 series is more perf/watt efficient over the 1060 series. So I think they can do much more with the 1060 series by cutting it down some and making a much better competitor for the 470 at an equal price while killing it in perf/watt too if they need to, I don't see the need for them to do that though, although there is a large gap between the 1050ti and 1060 3gb.
That is precisely why I was expecting better.
its all about the sales at the end, and this is why I don't think they need to, these types of cards are geared for a target audience that isn't looking for horsepower, they just want something that works with the lowest cost possible, its like asking a minimalist to make an organized mess on their desk, just doesn't work lol.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Why? We knew the specs already. They have almost the same theoretical FP32 throughput and the GTX 1050 has twice the ROP amount.
We knew already that older games would favor the 1050 non-Ti and compute-heavy games on newer APIs would bring it closer to the RX460.
It's cut-down chip vs. cut-down chip (~15% cut on both), except Polaris 11 is 10% smaller.
I think you mean 650 Ti... the 660 Ti was comparatively a monster to the 750 Ti.
I really thought it was going to be a dog fight, and the 460 would come out just a bit on top looks like its the 1050 all round and with LLAPI's its close. Didn't expect that. Also didn't expect the 75 watts only was for the overclocking too, was thinking they definitely need the power connector to over clock.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Yeah, I still have that bad boy around, the 3GB version of it, I can max several games with it @1080p (Arkham Knight, AC Unity ..), though @30fps. More taxing games would require turning some settings down a notch. It served me well for 4 years!
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
So this market would primarily include the huge business price sensitive-side market for office PC's running apps like Word, Excel, etc...
well office comps they don't even look at graphics cards so I would think probably not. IGP's are usually more than enough for office work.
Its kinda like this, if a person that wants to buy a "luxury" car like a mid level Jaguar for 30k, they would like to get something more, and probably can get something more, but they also know they can spend that extra money on something else or save it, than getting getting a more expensive vehicle. Its not that they are looking for something more, they want to be able to do the same things as before, going from point A to point B but want to do it in "luxury" if you want to call it that
, without crimping the rest of their life style.
A person looking at a 140 buck card, going up to 170 is 21% difference, that is a bit difference, that is like a guy looking at a 30k car going up to 37k. Two very different price brackets
Its kinda like this, if a person that wants to buy a "luxury" car like a mid level Jaguar for 30k, they would like to get something more, and probably can get something more, but they also know they can spend that extra money on something else or save it, than getting getting a more expensive vehicle. Its not that they are looking for something more, they want to be able to do the same things as before, going from point A to point B but want to do it in "luxury" if you want to call it that
, without crimping the rest of their life style. A person looking at a 140 buck card, going up to 170 is 21% difference, that is a bit difference, that is like a guy looking at a 30k car going up to 37k. Two very different price brackets
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Even though I didn't think to look at the card I noticed the past couple of client pc's (fortune 100) had Nvidia display drivers, but wasn't able to change any settings.
It really depends on the volume discounts OEM's get and how they price their systems, most if not all large businesses, 50+ people, have large contracts with HP/Dell/Lenovo, and it is what it is. So if they can get systems with dedicating graphics cards for around the same cost as IGP's they will do it (if the IT department has good people lol) but for the most part its penny pinching for them. They only will get it if its a need. Otherwise the extra money just goes wasted.
Office equipment well computers in general are just depreciating assets, so if the cost goes unused, its the company that eats that cost.
Office equipment well computers in general are just depreciating assets, so if the cost goes unused, its the company that eats that cost.
Last edited:
Similar threads
