Why are people still buying 1050TI's and not RX 570's?

[JRMBelgium]

I have a GTX 1080 and besides of Far Cry 5 I can't remember the last game I played on max settings.
I truly believe if your GPU is capable of handling higher resloutions with some sacrificed graphical details it's the way to go.
There are games that even my overclocked GTX 1080 can't maintain a solid 60FPS on max settings at 1080p, If you always want to go for max settings you'll always be stuck at 1080p even with the fastest GPUs out there.
Having the crispiness and sharpness of higher resolutions is more visually compelling than some sometimes invisible details that ultra settings offer, trust me.
There is also the matter of framerates, if you want a true 144Hz gaming experience even with a 500$ GPU it's impossible to achive unless you're willing to dial back some settings. (In most games)

A 1080 user on TPU forums claiming that he does not always play on Ultra? You have balls my friend. Seriously, thx for confirming that not ever high end buyer is an Ultra gamer.

 

[EsaT]

Id want the 1050ti for lack of power connector depending on the build and much less heat in an itx.

Power consumption is indeed one factor I myself take into consideration.
But funnily those same people weren't bothered by power consumption, when energy efficiency situation was completely opposite during HD5870 and its generation cards vs Nvidia's heating Fermistor.
Including Fermi's craptacularly bad idle consumption...
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_480_Fermi/30.html

Every time in AMD's history when they actually were able to compete or even beat Nvidia, people just kept buying Nvidia. Even when benchmark manipulation, game rendering manipulation, false advertising ( remember 3.5Gb on GTX 970 everyone? ) gets releases to the press, people keep buying it. And then those same Nvidia buyers bitch about AMD not competing with Nvidia. Why should they, it's not like they are going to switch. If at some point AMD beats Nvidia again, they will just wait for Nvidia prices to drop, so that they can buy Nvidia again.

Aren't you forgetting the claim of AMD having bad drivers, despite of Nvidia being the one having managed to make seriously problematic/even cards destroying drivers more often?

If masses applied all the same requirements to Nvidia they demand from AMD, they shouldn't be touching Nvidias except with this.

 

[AusWolf]

Not worried about it too much, mini itx systems you can have an external power connector for the 570.

It's not just the external power, but the size and heat also. The RX570 has the same TDP as a GTX1060, and it's pretty hard to get one in small form factor, unlike its green competitors.

 

[eidairaman1]

It's not just the external power, but the size and heat also. The RX570 has the same TDP as a GTX1060, and it's pretty hard to get one in small form factor, unlike its green competitors.

It is so funny how you talk about Green, electricity really isn't green.

 

[cucker tarlson]

people buying 1050ti over rx570 with a great game bundle are stupid and bad at choosing graphics cards.that's it.it's an equivalent for a 1060 3gb which is a card a tier higher at the same price.
I'm sure the number of them is not very high either,just as you had people buying Vega 64 LC over 1080Ti at higher price and those who bought Fury X over 980Ti.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Game Detail importance=Distance + Game speed.
It really is that simple.
The further away you are from your display the less detail matters.
If a game is designed for extreme fast pace action, detail is less important.

There's been a enough reviews over the years explaining the differences of medium details and Ultra...
I think we all know what PR bloat and bragware is.

 

[LFaWolf]

My answer - for most people, the family PC that is used to pay bills, browse Internet, do homework, buy some stuff, is a Dell or HP pre-built SFF with an i5 6400 (?) with a propriertary 250 watt PSU. After careful consideration and calculation of the power supply requirements, and the fact that most 1050 ti comes with a low profile bracket, it was determined that is the best card for an upgrade so the family PC can be used to play some basic games such as Minecraft, Fortnite, PUBG, or something similar, on a 23" 1080p monitor. Any RX 570 won't even fit in the SFF PC.

Not everyone has or can have a dedicated gaming PC.

 

[Vya Domus]

A 1080 user on TPU forums claiming that he does not always play on Ultra? You have balls my friend. Seriously, thx for confirming that not ever high end buyer is an Ultra gamer.

What's an ultra gamer ?

 

[cucker tarlson]

A 1080 user on TPU forums claiming that he does not always play on Ultra? You have balls my friend. Seriously, thx for confirming that not ever high end buyer is an Ultra gamer.

it depends on the game,but in vast majority I consider lower settings at higher framerate a much more "high end gamer" way to play than 4K 60 fps Ultra.To me game immersion is far much more dependent on framerate than visual quality.

 

[JRMBelgium]

What's an ultra gamer ?

Someone who plays on medium settings...

it depends on the game,but in vast majority I consider lower settings at higher framerate a much more "high end gamer" way to play than 4K 60 fps Ultra.To me game immersion is far much more dependent on framerate than visual quality.

Personally, I prefer sharpness over everything. That's why I love games that offer resolution scale settings. In Frostbite engine games, increasing the resolution scale increases drawdistance, sharpness and increases tessalation. I prefer that over extremely detailled shadows and lighting effects.

 

[Regeneration]

RX 500 series launched on April 2017, but software support still immature and drivers are full with bugs.

Seems like the series are meant for miners rater then gamers.

I've been looking at RX 500 feedback lately, and saw a lot of complaints: 100 percent GPU usage after exiting a game, system lag with multiple monitors (if it works), black artifacts on high GPU temperature.

 

[AusWolf]

It is so funny how you talk about Green, electricity really isn't green.

I meant nvidia, not electrically green. Sorry.

 

[eidairaman1]

I meant nvidia, not electrically green. Sorry.

Considering 560s and 570s are alternatives, there are nano cards to boot...

 

[AusWolf]

My answer - for most people, the family PC that is used to pay bills, browse Internet, do homework, buy some stuff, is a Dell or HP pre-built SFF with an i5 6400 (?) with a propriertary 250 watt PSU. After careful consideration and calculation of the power supply requirements, and the fact that most 1050 ti comes with a low profile bracket, it was determined that is the best card for an upgrade so the family PC can be used to play some basic games such as Minecraft, Fortnite, PUBG, or something similar, on a 23" 1080p monitor. Any RX 570 won't even fit in the SFF PC.

Not everyone has or can have a dedicated gaming PC.

And some people (like me) prefer ultra SFF gaming PCs over big and heavy ATX ones.

 

[eidairaman1]

And some people (like me) prefer ultra SFF gaming PCs over big and heavy ATX ones.

I have large mitts so the room to work is welcome.

 

[AusWolf]

Considering 560s and 570s are alternatives, there are nano cards to boot...

The 560 is not a very good gaming card, and the only SFF 570 I know about is the Sapphire Pulse. But even if you find it in a store, its 120 W TDP is something to consider against the 1050Ti's 75 W when you go SFF (heat).

 

[eidairaman1]

The 560 is not a very good gaming card, and the only SFF 570 I know about is the Sapphire Pulse. But even if you find it in a store, its 120 W TDP is something to consider against the 1050Ti's 75 W when you go SFF (heat).

https://www.game-debate.com/gpu/ind...=radeon-rx-560-4gb-vs-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-4gb

80 vs 75 isnt enough difference in tdp, so 2 fps difference between the 2 as well says the 560 is right on with the 1050ti

 

[Tatty_Two]

In most cases (I checked the 3 biggest online stores) in the UK the cheapest 1050Ti is around 15% cheaper than the cheapest 570, that still makes the 570 the better buy, but not if you don't have the dollar.

 

[eidairaman1]

In most cases (I checked the 3 biggest online stores) in the UK the cheapest 1050Ti is around 15% cheaper than the cheapest 570, that still makes the 570 the better buy, but not if you don't have the dollar.

Hence the 560 fills that space anyway.

 

[cucker tarlson]

https://www.game-debate.com/gpu/ind...=radeon-rx-560-4gb-vs-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-4gb

80 vs 75 isnt enough difference in tdp, so 2 fps difference between the 2 as well says the 560 is right on with the 1050ti

those tests you posted are sketchy af. 1050ti can be quite a bit faster than 560

 

[Tatty_Two]

Hence the 560 fills that space anyway.

Priced about the same here and there are also plenty of reviews showing 1050Ti wins so don't really think there is anything in it between the 2.

 

[JRMBelgium]

those tests you posted are sketchy af. 1050ti can be quite a bit faster than 560

Don't use benchmarks that ar THAT old. They in no way represent current performance in modern games with modern drivers.
In the last 6 months alone there have been performance improvements up to 10% in certain games.
Not only that, those benchmarks at Ultra for sub 200$ cards. Come on, people that buy a 1050 don't play on Ultra unless it's a very old game...

Seriously, benchmarks older then 12 months should get deleted form the web automaticly.... Nobody is going to buy a card and use 12+ month old drivers for it.
And when comparing cards, when a reviewer sees both cards can not keep 60fps, they should lower the settings in those games for a REALISTIC comparison.
Who's gonna play Battlefield 1 on less then 40fps... come on now... And that's just the freakin singleplayer.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Don't use benchmarks that ar THAT old. They in no way represent current performance in modern games with modern drivers.
In the last 6 months alone there have been performance improvements up to 10% in certain games.
Not only that, those benchmarks at Ultra for sub 200$ cards. Come on, people that buy a 1050 don't play on Ultra unless it's a very old game...

Seriously, benchmarks older then 12 months should get deleted form the web automaticly.... Nobody is going to buy a card and use 12+ month old drivers for it.
And when comparing cards, when a reviewer sees both cards can not keep 60fps, they should lower the settings in those games for a REALISTIC comparison.
Who's gonna play Battlefield 1 on less then 40fps... come on now... And that's just the freakin singleplayer.

in the ones you posted 1050ti is 24% faster at 1080p medium and 30% faster at ultra.
it scores the average of 90 fps at medium while it can get 50 fps at ultra. Ultra is therefore a better representation of whta people will be running,no one buys a 1050ti for a 144hz display.They'll wanna stay close to 60.

 

[notb]

It's a big leap because they have the R&D budget to make it a big leap. But if consumers ( non ITX users ) keep buying cards that are slower for the same price it's a "circle of life" kind of thing. Nvidia ends up with more money again, releases new generation and keeps the "better brand" status, people buy the slower cards for same price again, nvidia ends up with more money again, etc...

You're missing the point with the power advantage. It's not just for ITX.
Pentium/i3/i5 + 1050ti is a frugal combination, pooling under 100W in heavy load (RX570 alone peaks above 180W).
That means the whole PC will be able to run on any Chinese 350W PSU with huge safety margin (even if it turns out to be more like a 250W).
So just by comparing GPUs this might seem like a poor deal, but you're instantly saving $30+ on the the PSU.
And 1050Ti is cool and quiet, so you can use a cheap case as well, because there's hardly any need for noise damping or good airflow. And you don't need extra case coolers. Things add up.

Nvidia understands that by making such cards they're winning the whole entry-level gaming desktop business.
The irony of AMD's strategy is that they're making a lot of fuss about offering cheaper alternative, but they're actually targeting enthusiasts. So a typical AMD buyer won't care about the extra 100W power draw, because... well... because after reading a few topics about PSUs on gaming forums, he'll be 100% sure that 500W GOLD is a bare minimum.

 

[Casecutter]

Correct, when in America you can find various RX 570 4Gb deal for $130 (Not even needing a rebate), why the GTX 1050 Ti starts at $160 while more than half have prices still at $180-220... IDK.

Sure if you want/unwilling just to upgrade from some lowly non-efficient OEM PSU, you just continue on running wasted efficiency, while slogged with lower visual immersion... that's someone's prerogative.

Personally, I'd do the RX 570 and use the savings to upgrade to a nice 500W Gold PSU. See efficiency across the entire system, care less and Game more... paying Nvidia for supposed efficiency "up front" isn't truly getting a lower power bill.

While sure if in a SFF or ITX box sure size and heat you start looking a special GTX 1050Ti can't help that those you're always in some other reality. This is "GAMING" B-F-B 1080p that all this is about, ducking in other rabbit holes is not the topic.