Corsair RM1200X SHIFT 1200W PSU Review
Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
First GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Benchmarks Leak Online
Somewhere in the Asia region somebody has a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in his or her PC, and a working driver as well as it seems as some performance numbers have revealed itself on the web.
There has been quite a bit of speculation on the GeForce GTX 1050 and Ti. Apparently there will be two models released, the regular 1050 with 2GB graphics memory yet also a 1050 Ti with 4GB memory. According to to an earlier leak from benchlife they claimed the replacement series for the GeForce GTX 950 will be the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 with 2GB, this one would be based on a 640 shader processor en-counting GP107-300 Pascal-GPU. The second SKU would be the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, based on a GP107-400 Pascal based GPU with 768 shader processors. The cards will be priced at 119 and 139 USD respectively.
The benchmarks however surfaced over at Chiphell and next towards 3DMark 11 results a GPU-Z screenshot was posted. The manufacturer ID is Colorful and the card indeed has 4 GB GDDR5 memory / 128-bit. It scores 10054 points in the P score and 3867 points in the X mode, again this is 3DMark 11. That would be above the GeForce GTX 960 (X3302).
Now if we add that number to our own charts, this would be the generic picture (mind you that the results could be fake, hence a grain of salt, common sense and healthy skepticism always is recommended):
| | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTX 1060 6 GB | GTX 1060 3 GB | GTX 1050 Ti | GTX 1050 | GTX 950 | |
| GPU | GP106-400 | GP106-300 | GP107-400 | GP107-300 | GM206-250/251 |
| Shader processors | 1280 | 1152 | 768 | 640 | 768 |
| TMU's | 80 | 72 | 48 | 40 | 48 |
| ROP's | 48 | 48 | 32 | TBA | 32 |
| GPU freq | 1,506 MHz | 1,506 MHz | 1,290 MHz | 1,354 MHz | 1,024 MHz |
| Boost freq | 1,709 MHz | 1,709 MHz | 1,382 MHz | 1,455 MHz | 1,188 MHz |
| Mem freq | 2,002 MHz | 2,002 MHz | 1,752 MHz | TBA | 1,653 MHz |
| Mem size | 6 GB GDDR5 | 3 GB GDDR5 | 4 GB GDDR5 | 2 GB GDDR5 | 2 GB GDDR5 |
| mem bus | 192-bit | 192-bit | 128-bit | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| TDP | 120W | 120W | 75W | 75W | 90W/75W |
The GeForce GTX 1050 would get you 1.9 TFlops of (single precision) performance with 2.2 TFlops for the GTX 1050 Ti model. Both cards would fit in a 75 Watt TDP and thus will not require an external power connector.
First GeForce GTX 980 Ti Pictures hit the web - 05/23/2015 10:09 AM
The first pictures of NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 980 Ti graphics card have been outed yesterday, the Ti model is the upcoming enthusiast class graphics card from Nvidia....
The First GeForce GTX 980 Benchmarks ? - 09/07/2014 08:52 PM
3DMark scores of a GeForce GTX 980 and 980M SLI have surfaced on the web today, the website Videocardz posted them. Before I continue I want to say that there is no validity of the screen-shots whatso...
Valve Launches First Generation Steam Machines - 01/07/2014 10:03 AM
Valve, creators of best-selling game franchises (such as Counter-Strike, Dota 2, Half-Life, Left 4 Dead, Portal, and Team Fortress) and leading technologies (such as Steam and Source), today announced...
NVIDIA quietly adds first GeForce 300 series chip - 11/27/2009 12:11 PM
In a low-key move during Thanksgiving, NVIDIA has added the first graphics chipset to its GeForce 300 series. The GeForce 310 is a direct replacement for the earlier 210 and (andf thus a rename), like...
Monchis
Senior Member
Posts: 1303
Joined: 2014-06-15
Senior Member
Posts: 1303
Joined: 2014-06-15
#5341622 Posted on: 10/04/2016 07:44 PM
I see a similar drop in perf for high end cards and their predecessors, you're just demonstrating that games have become harder to run OVERALL
if anything this pascal gen has brought more improvement to mid range cards than ever, the 1060 is badass and the 1050 is supposedly beating a 960, 960 and 950 were meh
release dates for games and cards from amd-nvidia aren't aligned at all, so it makes little sense trying to compare that way
games and cards don´t have to be aligned, nvidia and amd knew years ago where games were heading, they have access to that stuff, still released a 2gb 960 that wasn´t any faster than the 760 in a few games, still released a $300 1060 that barely got better performance than an overclocked two year old $350 970.
Monchis: A crucial factor that you're not accounting for is the convergence of console hardware from X360 onwards to PC hardware. This will lessen the performance difference without a few generational leaps in gfx advancements on the PC side.
Also, in relation to your console vs pc comparison; Human Revolution is a 30fps game on consoles. The lowest card in that list HD6670 already surpasses what the consoles could do with HR. Moving to Mankind Divided, the X1 and PS4 are now really PC hardware, so, the differences are going to be smaller than in the past. DE:MD is again only a 30fps (drops to 24fps I believe) game on consoles. Again, the lowest cards on the list (780Ti and 380X) already surpasses what consoles can do at much higher fidelity.
Also, at Ultra settings, the PC version far surpasses console versions. What we are seeing is in-fact higher-quality gfx settings, much higher resolution as well as higher frame-rates than consoles are capable of.
Another thing to bare in-mind in your cherry-picked comparisons; GTX1060 is not a 2k gaming card. The difference in resolution of this comparison is 2x.
If you really want to see how far we've come in 5yrs, then, you need to pick 1 game, same resolution and measure fps between old card and new card.
Choosing a game series like Farcry2 vs Farcry Primal or DE: HR vs DE: MD means nothing. If devs wanted to, they could make a game that would only run at 30fps on a GTX1080. Your mistake is you're blaming the graphics card vendors for this low performance when in actual fact there are a number of factors. DE:MD is not a good example of a well optimised PC game either.
Technology that our cpu and gpu are made with is also near being maxed-out. This is the reason why the push has been for more cores, but, this gives diminishing returns like already stated.
You will see less and less leaps forward for the next decade compared to the past. If I said there's only 10x more power compared to Titan Pascal left before producible gpu core is maxed-out in terms of processing power for a given size and power, I think it'd be pretty close to the truth. Within 10yrs we will have pretty much fully maxed-out this technology and will need another way to move forward.
Ofcourse, once the tech has finally reached it's full peak, then, prices will start dropping. However, your comparison methods here in this thread probably won't be workable in 5yrs to come, especially in terms of jumps in resolution. It just takes too much processing power and electrical power to do it. I would be very surprised if we're talking about general 8K gaming in 2021. I think the situation will be worse than 4k today; cards really struggling to render 60fps@8k. Perhaps people will settle for 30fps@8k which is much less demanding.
Well that stuff that now console ports are harder to run because they are now x86 from the ground up doesn´t make sense, you are inventing stuff, game code has always been like 99% the same between pc and console version anyway.
Ps.- And it doesn´t matter if the 1060 is promoted as a 1080p or 2k card, it´s just pixels and older cards pushed waay more than consoles, which equals to a more solid card, better endurance as time passes, better ability to use those extra settings = better budget card.
I see a similar drop in perf for high end cards and their predecessors, you're just demonstrating that games have become harder to run OVERALL
if anything this pascal gen has brought more improvement to mid range cards than ever, the 1060 is badass and the 1050 is supposedly beating a 960, 960 and 950 were meh
release dates for games and cards from amd-nvidia aren't aligned at all, so it makes little sense trying to compare that way
games and cards don´t have to be aligned, nvidia and amd knew years ago where games were heading, they have access to that stuff, still released a 2gb 960 that wasn´t any faster than the 760 in a few games, still released a $300 1060 that barely got better performance than an overclocked two year old $350 970.
Monchis: A crucial factor that you're not accounting for is the convergence of console hardware from X360 onwards to PC hardware. This will lessen the performance difference without a few generational leaps in gfx advancements on the PC side.
Also, in relation to your console vs pc comparison; Human Revolution is a 30fps game on consoles. The lowest card in that list HD6670 already surpasses what the consoles could do with HR. Moving to Mankind Divided, the X1 and PS4 are now really PC hardware, so, the differences are going to be smaller than in the past. DE:MD is again only a 30fps (drops to 24fps I believe) game on consoles. Again, the lowest cards on the list (780Ti and 380X) already surpasses what consoles can do at much higher fidelity.
Also, at Ultra settings, the PC version far surpasses console versions. What we are seeing is in-fact higher-quality gfx settings, much higher resolution as well as higher frame-rates than consoles are capable of.
Another thing to bare in-mind in your cherry-picked comparisons; GTX1060 is not a 2k gaming card. The difference in resolution of this comparison is 2x.
If you really want to see how far we've come in 5yrs, then, you need to pick 1 game, same resolution and measure fps between old card and new card.
Choosing a game series like Farcry2 vs Farcry Primal or DE: HR vs DE: MD means nothing. If devs wanted to, they could make a game that would only run at 30fps on a GTX1080. Your mistake is you're blaming the graphics card vendors for this low performance when in actual fact there are a number of factors. DE:MD is not a good example of a well optimised PC game either.
Technology that our cpu and gpu are made with is also near being maxed-out. This is the reason why the push has been for more cores, but, this gives diminishing returns like already stated.
You will see less and less leaps forward for the next decade compared to the past. If I said there's only 10x more power compared to Titan Pascal left before producible gpu core is maxed-out in terms of processing power for a given size and power, I think it'd be pretty close to the truth. Within 10yrs we will have pretty much fully maxed-out this technology and will need another way to move forward.
Ofcourse, once the tech has finally reached it's full peak, then, prices will start dropping. However, your comparison methods here in this thread probably won't be workable in 5yrs to come, especially in terms of jumps in resolution. It just takes too much processing power and electrical power to do it. I would be very surprised if we're talking about general 8K gaming in 2021. I think the situation will be worse than 4k today; cards really struggling to render 60fps@8k. Perhaps people will settle for 30fps@8k which is much less demanding.
Well that stuff that now console ports are harder to run because they are now x86 from the ground up doesn´t make sense, you are inventing stuff, game code has always been like 99% the same between pc and console version anyway.
Ps.- And it doesn´t matter if the 1060 is promoted as a 1080p or 2k card, it´s just pixels and older cards pushed waay more than consoles, which equals to a more solid card, better endurance as time passes, better ability to use those extra settings = better budget card.
Stormyandcold
Senior Member
Posts: 5845
Joined: 2003-09-15
Senior Member
Posts: 5845
Joined: 2003-09-15
#5341637 Posted on: 10/04/2016 08:31 PM
Monchis; It's in the numbers which your 2 game series examples already show.
Why?
Because of the goal-posts that you've set. Simple.
Set the resolution back to 1080p, which is what consoles use and now you can see that those 30fps console games run well on PC.
However, you're not doing that at all, instead you're raising the resolution and trying to compare games that are roughly a mix of medium to high settings on console to PC benchmarks which are running maxed-out settings at a higher resolution.
Basically, you're the one making this up as you go and your comparisons don't take into account this convergence of x86 on consoles. You certainly don't even realise that both Farcry Primal and DE:MD are (barely) 30fps games on console. If you did, then, yeah, you would realise that these games are maxing-out consoles and it's obvious that they will be demanding games on PC also. However, the standard for PC gaming is 60fps+, not 30fps.
Compare properly by using the latest games at 1080p, same settings as console and now look at the fps. To compare old games to new is meaningless, regardless of whether you pick 2 games from the same franchise or not.
Here is an example using DE: MD;
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/deus_ex_mankind_divided_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html
GTX 780ti is enough for a better than console experience @1080p. At Ultra settings, then, fps will match consoles, but, look even better. You will notice one thing though; the list doesn't include any 50 series budget cards. That's not to say it can't run this game, but, it would just be at the bottom of the list. On the other-hand, the GTX970 that you didn't buy runs over 60% faster than consoles at high and over 10% better at ultra (which consoles can't run at so isn't even really comparable) fps-wise.
Convergence will continue with PS4 pro and Xbox Scorpio. These cards are sporting similar technology to AMD Polaris series (scorpio subject to change). Once games are released with these consoles in-mind, then, the performance difference between consoles and PC will shrink even further and the console ports that follow will show this next year. The only thing that will help widen this gap will be Volta and Vega.
Finally, game code isn't 99% the same between PC and consoles. Higher texture quality on PC alone would refute this claim of yours (laughable). For an example of what happens when you try to do this; Quantum Break.
Nope. Total bs once again. GTX1060 is NOT a 2k card, check Guru3d benchmarks. This is a fact using latest games so is confirmed. Budget cards have always been compromise cards. The GTX660 was an exception that proved the rule.
After all that, if you still don't get why old comparisons are meaningless;
Todays consoles ARE literally PC's. So, you're comparing a relatively cheap PC to desktop PC (that can have dirt cheap £25 card up-to £1000+ card). Of-course, the differences are going to become less and less, doh!
Monchis; It's in the numbers which your 2 game series examples already show.
Why?
Because of the goal-posts that you've set. Simple.
Set the resolution back to 1080p, which is what consoles use and now you can see that those 30fps console games run well on PC.
However, you're not doing that at all, instead you're raising the resolution and trying to compare games that are roughly a mix of medium to high settings on console to PC benchmarks which are running maxed-out settings at a higher resolution.
Basically, you're the one making this up as you go and your comparisons don't take into account this convergence of x86 on consoles. You certainly don't even realise that both Farcry Primal and DE:MD are (barely) 30fps games on console. If you did, then, yeah, you would realise that these games are maxing-out consoles and it's obvious that they will be demanding games on PC also. However, the standard for PC gaming is 60fps+, not 30fps.
Compare properly by using the latest games at 1080p, same settings as console and now look at the fps. To compare old games to new is meaningless, regardless of whether you pick 2 games from the same franchise or not.
Here is an example using DE: MD;
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/deus_ex_mankind_divided_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,6.html
GTX 780ti is enough for a better than console experience @1080p. At Ultra settings, then, fps will match consoles, but, look even better. You will notice one thing though; the list doesn't include any 50 series budget cards. That's not to say it can't run this game, but, it would just be at the bottom of the list. On the other-hand, the GTX970 that you didn't buy runs over 60% faster than consoles at high and over 10% better at ultra (which consoles can't run at so isn't even really comparable) fps-wise.
Convergence will continue with PS4 pro and Xbox Scorpio. These cards are sporting similar technology to AMD Polaris series (scorpio subject to change). Once games are released with these consoles in-mind, then, the performance difference between consoles and PC will shrink even further and the console ports that follow will show this next year. The only thing that will help widen this gap will be Volta and Vega.
Finally, game code isn't 99% the same between PC and consoles. Higher texture quality on PC alone would refute this claim of yours (laughable). For an example of what happens when you try to do this; Quantum Break.
ps.- And it doesn´t matter if the 1060 is promoted as a 1080p or 2k card, it´s just pixels and older cards pushed waay more than consoles, which equals to a more solid card, better endurance as time passes, better ability to use those extra settings = better budget card.
Nope. Total bs once again. GTX1060 is NOT a 2k card, check Guru3d benchmarks. This is a fact using latest games so is confirmed. Budget cards have always been compromise cards. The GTX660 was an exception that proved the rule.
After all that, if you still don't get why old comparisons are meaningless;
Todays consoles ARE literally PC's. So, you're comparing a relatively cheap PC to desktop PC (that can have dirt cheap £25 card up-to £1000+ card). Of-course, the differences are going to become less and less, doh!
tsunami231
Senior Member
Posts: 13883
Joined: 2003-05-24
Senior Member
Posts: 13883
Joined: 2003-05-24
#5341678 Posted on: 10/04/2016 11:03 PM
I dont think there big enough faceplam to cover what is happening here.
I dont think there big enough faceplam to cover what is happening here.
Koniakki
Senior Member
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2009-09-15
Senior Member
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2009-09-15
#5341701 Posted on: 10/05/2016 12:04 AM
We have Epic, Megafacepalm, Ultimate etc if even a tri-facepalm is not enough..
We have Epic, Megafacepalm, Ultimate etc if even a tri-facepalm is not enough..
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 9797
Joined: 2011-09-21
UM WHAT!!!! Where are you getting this false information? My 1070 is playing most everything at maxish setting WQHD and decent setting at 4K. The 1080 will play most everything maxed on 2560x1440.