NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Uses Slower GDDR6 Memory, Based on GB207 Silicon

[lexluthermiester]

And even with high end cards, given the 10GB 3080 vs 12GB 3080. Minimal as a 3% difference may be that is a whole other beast honestly. Even has a minor but different core configuration

Exactly. That's not a scam, it's a different tier model within the same model set. Companies have been doing this for decades. Perfectly normal.

APUs are nice, but they are nowhere near as transposable as a regular add-in card.

You can put a graphics card into almost any system that has a free PCI-E slot.
You can't put an APU in anything except a board designed for said APU and you'll have to like the CPU that the APU contains. (i.e. If say for instance Person A found a good deal on a strong CPU without an iGPU (Like a 14900KF, 5950X...etc.) and intends to use the system exlusively for CPU-heavy tasks. What good would an APU do them? They can't stick an APU in there if they want to use the CPU.)

There's also the VRAM variable. System RAM, while ok, makes for terrible VRAM. APU's are excellent for a limited use-case-scenario but only if the system RAM is high performance. Otherwise GFX performance is terrible and even with high performance RAM can never get above a certain performance threshold.

dGPU's for the win.

Well perhaps geographic location mattered?

They're not arguing prices, they're arguing specs, so geography doesn't really factor in. Fair thought though.

 

[john_]

Here is another theory about the RTX 5050. I see that the mobile chip probably supports both GDDR6 and GDDR7(except if someone did a typo). So, what if RTX 5050 comes in desktops in two versions, like what Nvidia did with the GT 1030. A GDDR7 version at $250 that will be probably get announced first and a GDDR6 version, maybe or maybe not with cut down specs, 75W, no external power and $199 price tag probably released later.

 

[Testsubject01]

NVIDIA is preparing to launch a new low entry level graphics card SKU in July, the GeForce RTX 5050.

FT FY

Technically, the XX50 was entry level in the past, but spec-wise this should have been the GT 5030.
It also should be a $125-149 product, but with performance being down-tiered and prices up-tiered with 50-gen once more, this will be one expensive “add-in dedicated graphics processor” for $199 +
with a power connector to boot…

Bravo!

 

[mechtech]

NVIDIA is preparing to launch a new low entry level graphics card SKU in July, the GeForce RTX 5050.

Should have a poll for what would be classified as low entry level gpu???

Would that be something under the cost of a low entry cpu + say ram and board costs?

Something with at least 3x the performance of the best igpu?

or just the lowest tier dgpu card available regardless of performance or price??

 

[Chrispy_]

Under $250?

This is the only way 8GB makes sense. Also the lack of VRAM bandwidth and cut down core configuration means that 1080p is all this will be good for, making 8GB even less of an issue.

My beef with the 9060/5060/5060Ti 8GB is that they are fast enough for 1440p and more demanding AAA games, without the VRAM to back it up. At least this time the VRAM quantity is proportionate to the price and performance.

 

[AleXXX666]

Seems the never released 4050, but in Blackwell edition and 128-bit memory interface instead of 96-bit:

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Specs

NVIDIA AD107, 2640 MHz, 2560 Cores, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 6144 MB GDDR6, 2250 MHz, 96 bit

www.techpowerup.com

Edit: Meh, forget that. It seems the X050 are almost carbon copies generation after generation.

so what, if it works, then?...

But of course it does, it's just another way for nGreediya to cut their BOM costs, and still slink out a barely usable card for whatever they think people will pay for it AND be able to say they have a "budget" model, targeted specifically at those users who don't know any better or simply don't care, as long as it has that nGreediya label on it, they can say they are part of the "kewl crowd"...

All the other stuff cited in this thread notwithstanding, it's just noise IMO

who damn need GDDR7 in BUDGET GPU? Make it cheaper, not faster!

"We heard you guys loved the 3050 8GB when it came out, so much that we decided to do it again. 2070 performance on a good day, for a price you can only justify if you can't afford anything better."

What a crock. Cards in this awkward middle ground have never really found their niche: the 1060 3GB, the 1660/Ti/Super, the 3050 8GB... The kind of people that bought them bought them because they wanted to build something for themselves, but couldn't afford a better card (and/or didn't know better). Items like the 1050Ti, the 1650, and at this point the 3050 6GB find much greater success due to both being cheap and playing nice with cheap systems, i.e. office PCs with crappy proprietary power supplies.

Slot-powered is a powerful position in the market, and oftentimes makes up for a card's otherwise abysmal value proposition. Doesn't matter much if the card ain't worth $170 if the system in total costs less than a petsitter's paycheck.

why "afford" if it SUITS? One is fine with iPhone 16e, not everyone really NEEDS Pro Max, and "affordability" is kindda questionable too.

 

[JoniISkandar]

No, your statement is a scam. The 1060 3GB was an excellent budget card, full effing stop. Just stop with your nonsense.

What total Nonsense!!

Even On DAY 1 Release date, every Reviewer suggest Avoid the 3GB version its trash and always been trash, Misleading series carry 1060 name but totally different card it absolete only 1 yeaes later

RX570 8GB at the time selling only for 110$ and Only require 110 watt when i gaming, and still can play game 8 years laters

Even Better RX580 selling only 130$, same performance as 6GB version of 1060 and still perform 8 years later when 1060 even 6GB version now is useless run out Vram to play game and need mod the game to run on 6GB

Let alone 3GB version become Ewaste

 

[JustBenching]

What total Nonsense!!

Even On DAY 1 Release date, every Reviewer suggest Avoid the 3GB version its trash and always been trash, Misleading series carry 1060 name but totally different card it absolete only 1 yeaes later

RX570 8GB at the time selling only for 110$ and Only require 110 watt when i gaming, and still can play game 8 years laters

Even Better RX580 selling only 130$, same performance as 6GB version of 1060 and still perform 8 years later when 1060 even 6GB version now is useless run out Vram to play game and need mod the game to run on 6GB

Let alone 3GB version become Ewaste

Uhm, no. You are actually - completely wrong. The RX570 wasn't selling for only 110$ at the time. In fact, the RX 570 did not even EXIST. The 1060 3gb was released a year earlier. When I bought the 3gb 1060 it was 234€, the 6gb was 339€ and the RX480 8gb was around 350.

It was obsolete a year later, so go ahead and tell me what games it couldn't play in 2017. Im all ears.

 

[sLowEnd]

What total Nonsense!!

Even On DAY 1 Release date, every Reviewer suggest Avoid the 3GB version its trash and always been trash, Misleading series carry 1060 name but totally different card it absolete only 1 yeaes later

RX570 8GB at the time selling only for 110$ and Only require 110 watt when i gaming, and still can play game 8 years laters

Even Better RX580 selling only 130$, same performance as 6GB version of 1060 and still perform 8 years later when 1060 even 6GB version now is useless run out Vram to play game and need mod the game to run on 6GB

Let alone 3GB version become Ewaste

You know, old reviews are still available on the internet and directly contradict what you're saying. The 1060 3GB wasn't universally panned. It was a recommendable product at its price point.

MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 3 GB Review

MSI's GTX 1060 Gaming X 3 GB might come with half the memory amount only, but still brings the big guns in form of the large dual-fan TwinFrozr cooler. Our review will test whether 3 GB is a viable alternative to 6 GB if you are trying to save some money.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Scattergrunt]

You know, old reviews are still available on the internet and directly contradict what you're saying. The 1060 3GB wasn't universally panned. It was a recommendable product at its price point.

MSI GTX 1060 Gaming X 3 GB Review

MSI's GTX 1060 Gaming X 3 GB might come with half the memory amount only, but still brings the big guns in form of the large dual-fan TwinFrozr cooler. Our review will test whether 3 GB is a viable alternative to 6 GB if you are trying to save some money.

www.techpowerup.com

Speaking as someone who daily drived a 1060 3GB for 7 years, its a perfectly fine GPU. Mildly misleading name, but fine. It's definitely not as bad as the 3050 6GB in terms of 'misleading' in my opinion (which even then the 3050 6GB still is perfectly usable, just more niche.)

I still personally feel that between the 1050Ti and 1060 6GB it was a good value for what you got. AMD had more interesting prospects in terms of value but again, what NVIDIA offered was not anywhere near as bad as what the person you quoted tried implying.

 

[JustBenching]

Speaking as someone who daily drived a 1060 3GB for 7 years, its a perfectly fine GPU. Mildly misleading name, but fine. It's definitely not as bad as the 3050 6GB in terms of 'misleading' in my opinion (which even then the 3050 6GB still is perfectly usable, just more niche.)

I still personally feel that between the 1050Ti and 1060 6GB it was a good value for what you got.

Was as fast as the rx480 while being a lot cheaper and consuming a LOT less power.

 

[Scattergrunt]

Was as fast as the rx480 while being a lot cheaper and consuming a LOT less power.

30 dollars cheaper. TDP is only 30 watts apart, too, while the RX 480 is 5 to 10% faster. So not really that big of a difference honestly. Still notable enough to where it could be a good dealbreaker for some, whereas we have GPU's like the 5070Ti which might as well be 4080's in terms of performance and power draw, so I mean, the comparison could be worse if it was closer. But whatevah.

I dont personally consider anything thats hovering around 180 Watts or below to be concerning enough to wanna be worried about power in terms of price.. though that obviously depends on a ton of other factors, such as your PSU / its pricing, economy, your living situation, country, etc. 200 and up, sure though.

Polaris was decent value. Artic Islands? Eh. I can't really say so.

 

[JustBenching]

30 dollars cheaper for about 7 - 10% of the performance of the RX 480. TDP is only 30 watts apart, too. So not really that big of a difference honestly. Still notable enough to where it could be a good dealbreaker for some, whereas we have GPU's like the 5070Ti which might as well be 4080's in terms of performance and power draw, so I mean, the comparison could be worse if it was closer. But whatevah.

I dont personally consider anything thats hovering around 180 Watts or below to be concerning enough to wanna be worried about power in terms of price.. though that obviously depends on a ton of other factors, such as your PSU / its pricing, economy, your living situation, country, etc. 200 and up, sure though.

Polaris was decent value. Artic Islands? Eh. I can't really say so.

Was using tpus benchmark that was posted from TPU.

 

[Scattergrunt]

Was using tpus benchmark that was posted from TPU.

Sorry, was tired. I meant the RX 480 was 7 - 10 faster than the 1060 3GB. God, I need some coffee. Let me correct that with a edit.

 

[JustBenching]

Sorry, was tired. I meant the RX 480 was 7 - 10 faster than the 1060 3GB. God, I need some coffee. Let me correct that with a edit.

Tpus review has them both at the exact same performance

 

[Scattergrunt]

Tpus review has them both at the exact same performance

Far as my memory goes and what modern reviews show its shifted slightly(?), but who knows (or cares cause these GPU's are pretty much obsolete nowadays)

 

[RinSenpai]

Far as my memory goes and what modern reviews show its shifted slightly(?), but who knows (or cares cause these GPU's are pretty much obsolete nowadays)

Back then, if I remember correctly, the RX 580 was about 5-10% slower than a 1060 6GB, but nowadays the RX 580 8GB is 10-15% faster than the 1060 6GB.

 

[dgianstefani]

Back then, if I remember correctly, the RX 580 was about 5-10% slower than a 1060 6GB, but nowadays the RX 580 8GB is 10-15% faster than the 1060 6GB.

Yeah, bigger VRAM which means the 6 GB gets averages dragged down by running out. But either way both are only suitable for old games these days. Complete lack of good upscaler means no crutch, which means 720p/30 in AAA slop if they aren't indie slop, and 1080p bench was never going to look good for either. FSR3 exists yes, but unless you have a strong stomach, the HW accelerated DLSS/FSR4 is necessary, and that requires at least RTX 20xx or RDNA 4.

 

[Chrispy_]

Back then, if I remember correctly, the RX 580 was about 5-10% slower than a 1060 6GB, but nowadays the RX 580 8GB is 10-15% faster than the 1060 6GB.

I think that was true for the RX480 vs 1060GB, since those cards launched at the same time, more or less - as direct competitors and the Radeon was between 0% and 15% slower, depending on the game. That definitely improved over time as the driver team squeezed more out of GCN architecture, so at the end of the RX480's life it was about the same as a 1060 6GB on average.

The RX580 was always faster than a 1060, even if you look back to reviews from 2018. At that point nobody cared though - the 1060 was already 2 years old and the RX580 was just an overclocked 480, so pretty unexciting and people were probably disappointed, hoping for more from AMD than a factory overclocked refresh that offered 5-10% more performance than a two-year-old Geforce and sucked down 180-200W instead of the 120W of the old Geforce.

What total Nonsense!!

Even On DAY 1 Release date, every Reviewer suggest Avoid the 3GB version its trash and always been trash, Misleading series carry 1060 name but totally different card it absolete only 1 yeaes later

RX570 8GB at the time selling only for 110$ and Only require 110 watt when i gaming, and still can play game 8 years laters

Even Better RX580 selling only 130$, same performance as 6GB version of 1060 and still perform 8 years later when 1060 even 6GB version now is useless run out Vram to play game and need mod the game to run on 6GB

Let alone 3GB version become Ewaste

The 1060 3GB was doubly trashed by reviewers at launch.

1. for having only 3GB which was detrimental at a time when 2GB cards were already struggling for VRAM in AAA games and 4GB cards were on borrowed time.
2. for calling it a 1060 when it had fewer cores and TMUs than the 6GB variant of the 1060.

Nvidia didn't even try to clock it higher to compensate - it was simply a lesser card, deceptively sold with the "1060" name to trick people into thinking it had 1060 performance. Even if it had been given 6GB of VRAM it wouldn't have matched a 1060, but the lack of VRAM meant that it was much slower in some games where 3GB wasn't enough.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Speaking as someone who daily drived a 1060 3GB for 7 years, its a perfectly fine GPU. Mildly misleading name, but fine. It's definitely not as bad as the 3050 6GB in terms of 'misleading' in my opinion (which even then the 3050 6GB still is perfectly usable, just more niche.)

I still personally feel that between the 1050Ti and 1060 6GB it was a good value for what you got. AMD had more interesting prospects in terms of value but again, what NVIDIA offered was not anywhere near as bad as what the person you quoted tried implying.

I'm going to agree with the usability aspects of your statement, but not the misleading parts. There is nothing misleading about them. The specs are well detailed, as they should be, and buyers know exactly what they are getting. When you bought that 1060 3GB, you knew you were getting a slightly scaled down version of the 1060 with half the VRAM. You were not being mislead in any way.

Same with the 3050 and now the 5050. The specs are fully published and people know what they are buying. Niche or not, there is a demand for such cards and NVidia, AMD & Intel all know it.

The 1060 3GB was doubly trashed by reviewers at launch.

Yeah, and that was just as dumb then as it is now. Though to be fair, there was FAR less drama then now, comparatively.

What total Nonsense!!

Your opinion is NOT supported by either merit or general consensus. The 1060 3GB was in the top 5 of the Steam survey for a very long time. Not as long as the 6GB model, but still a very long time. It was a very popular seller because, and try to follow along here, it was an EXCEPTIONAL value for money. Why? Because it performed within a close margin of it's 6GB sibling.

 

[Scattergrunt]

I'm going to agree with the usability aspects of your statement, but not the misleading parts. There is nothing misleading about them. The specs are well detailed, as they should be, and buyers know exactly what they are getting. When you bought that 1060 3GB, you knew you were getting a slightly scaled down version of the 1060 with half the VRAM. You were not being mislead in any way.

Same with the 3050 and now the 5050. The specs are fully published and people know what they are buying. Niche or not, there is a demand for such cards and NVidia, AMD & Intel all know it.

The thing is that none of these specs are laid out on packaging. Us more tech savvy people sure can see and not be mislead. But the average joe can get confused when they realize that the 1060 3GB is actually not just the 1060 6GB with half the vram but instead also slightly cut down.

Just because you can hypothetically find the specs doesn't mean that someone actually will go out of their way to do so. Sure you can shift blame onto the consumer, especially if its a digital purchase, but physical purchases? I would disagree. I dont have a problem with the 1060 3GB because not such a horrendous cut down from its 'full' version that its bad enough to call out. The 3050 6GB absolutely is though.

Again, doesnt mean that the 3050 6GB is a awful card, or that it was made to be misleading (though the way it was announced and quietly released there after was suspicious as hell.), it just means the card is misleading for the average person. Which, I should add, matters more to me than tech enthusiasts being mislead. I still like the 3050 6GB. I won't pretend that its quiet annoucement and release alongside having the same name as the 3050 8GB while basically being a completely different card is not suspicious, and I think it should always be pointed out, atleast the fact that it and the 8GB model are very much different cards.

It's a matter of logic in my mind.. if the card is different enough to warrant having a different GPU die name (GA106 vs GA107) then its absolutely different enough to warrant a different name, nuff said. But hey, the card is old enough now that most people know what they're buying when they get a 3050 6GB so I really dont care as much anymore.

The 1060 3GB was doubly trashed by reviewers at launch.

1. for having only 3GB which was detrimental at a time when 2GB cards were already struggling for VRAM in AAA games and 4GB cards were on borrowed time.
2. for calling it a 1060 when it had fewer cores and TMUs than the 6GB variant of the 1060.

I cannot personally find that many reviews that which mentioned this fact vs the positive reviews. Maybe times were different back then? Not sure, im not the best at looking back at history on the internet.

Nvidia didn't even try to clock it higher to compensate - it was simply a lesser card, deceptively sold with the "1060" name to trick people into thinking it had 1060 performance. Even if it had been given 6GB of VRAM it wouldn't have matched a 1060, but the lack of VRAM meant that it was much slower in some games where 3GB wasn't enough.

Like I said before to lex, the performance difference is not high enough that its worth me getting bothered by. Still sucks, dont get me wrong, but personally speaking I dont mind the 1060 3GB. I did mind the 3050 6GB though, which I explained in the response to Lex.

 

[JustBenching]

The thing is that none of these specs are laid out on packaging. Us more tech savvy people sure can see and not be mislead. But the average joe can get confused when they realize that the 1060 3GB is actually not just the 1060 6GB with half the vram but instead also slightly cut down.

Just because you can hypothetically find the specs doesn't mean that someone actually will go out of their way to do so. Sure you can shift blame onto the consumer, especially if its a digital purchase, but physical purchases? I would disagree. I dont have a problem with the 1060 3GB because not such a horrendous cut down from its 'full' version that its bad enough to call out. The 3050 6GB absolutely is though.

Again, doesnt mean that the 3050 6GB is a awful card, or that it was made to be misleading (though the way it was announced and quietly released there after was suspicious as hell.), it just means the card is misleading for the average person. Which, I should add, matters more to me than tech enthusiasts being mislead. I still like the 3050 6GB. I won't pretend that its quiet annoucement and release alongside having the same name as the 3050 8GB while basically being a completely different card is not suspicious, and I think it should always be pointed out, atleast the fact that it and the 8GB model are very much different cards.

It's a matter of logic in my mind.. if the card is different enough to warrant having a different GPU die name (GA106 vs GA107) then its absolutely different enough to warrant a different name, nuff said. But hey, the card is old enough now that most people know what they're buying when they get a 3050 6GB so I really dont care as much anymore.


I cannot personally find that many reviews that which mentioned this fact vs the positive reviews. Maybe times were different back then? Not sure, im not the best at looking back at history on the internet.


Like I said before to lex, the performance difference is not high enough that its worth me getting bothered by. Still sucks, dont get me wrong, but personally speaking I dont mind the 1060 3GB. I did mind the 3050 6GB though, which I explained in the response to Lex.

Since I had the 3gb card for a long time alongside the 6gb version, until they were both too slow to properly run anything there were only 3 games that I experienced Vram issues. PUBG @ ultra had stutters, you had to drop textures to high, Doom 2016 @ nightmare textures had reduced performance, you had to drop textures to ultra or very high, and watchdogs 2. But even a 1080ti was struggling at watchdogs 2 maxed out so there is that.

 

[Scattergrunt]

Since I had the 3gb card for a long time alongside the 6gb version, until they were both too slow to properly run anything there were only 3 games that I experienced Vram issues. PUBG @ ultra had stutters, you had to drop textures to high, Doom 2016 @ nightmare textures had reduced performance, you had to drop textures to ultra or very high, and watchdogs 2. But even a 1080ti was struggling at watchdogs 2 maxed out so there is that.

As someone who also used the 1060 3GB on Doom 2016, can attest to that. But for almost every game I did play it was fine enough. I wouldnt say it wasnt worse than a 1060 6GB (because that would be outright ignoring reality) but for me anyway I was fine with it. A fine enough compromise, I suppose.

 

[dgianstefani]

As someone who also used the 1060 3GB on Doom 2016, can attest to that. But for almost every game I did play it was fine enough. I wouldnt say it wasnt worse than a 1060 6GB (because that would be outright ignoring reality) but for me anyway I was fine with it. A fine enough compromise, I suppose.

Let alone the 1060, my friends and I used the slot powered 4 GB 1050 Ti and before that the 750 Ti for some years, on old ivy bridge and haswell 4c/4t office machines. Played everything we wanted them to at 1080/720p.

 

[Scattergrunt]

Let alone the 1060, my friends and I used the slot powered 4 GB 1050 Ti and before that the 750 Ti for some years, on old ivy bridge and haswell 4c/4t office machines. Played everything we wanted them to at 1080/720p.

The 1060 3GB only lasted up until about 2020 which is when I started noticing its performance falling off. After 2022, it was basically a paperweight for any mildly intensive game. Glad I upgraded before then.