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

[lexluthermiester]

Just because you call it a fact, doesn't make it so.

However the overwhelming amount of benchmarking and testing do make it a fact. The RX570 outperforms the 1050ti handily. That is a fact. Whether he says it, W1zzard says it or I say it, the numbers prove it.

Power consumption is part and parcel of "performance"

No it isn't. Power consumption is a metric that stands by itself and has nothing to do with performance. And if you think that the amount of power used by the RX570 over the 1050ti is going to hurt someones power bill, you need to go do some research.

 

[eidairaman1]

Wrong!
Just because you call it a fact, doesn't make it so.
Power consumption is part and parcel of "performance" so explain how a card that uses much more power wins?

For the performance you get here look at gpu temps compared to frames, for a 8-10 degree increase in temps you get double the amount of frames.

570 has more goin for it and obviously a superior card.

1050ti is like a FX5200

 

[cucker tarlson]

Can't wait till games start using the 2700X lol

the fact is they ARE.what is happening is the cpu load is spread across all threads,which makes those high core count ryzens pretty cool and power efficient chips for gaming.They're not using as much resources as e.g. a hexacore i5.
Where people make a common mistake though is putting equivalence between core performance and thread count. a 2600x will stay at 50% load across all threads where 8600k will get to 70%,but 2600x will still lose in performance numbers cause of what I said-no equivalence. Games prefer faster core. Those multi threaded games do too. More cores is only useful when you're core count limited.Hexacores with no HT are not. Or al least the number of cases where a 8600k will get hampered by the lack of threads is overwhelmingly lower than where Ryzen will be hampered by its single core performance/latency even though it IS in fact using multiple threads.Otherwise core performance and memory speed/latency is all that matters.
Buying something and then hoping for the scenario where it will outperform the competition to happen is silly to me.If it ever happens and you feel you need an upgrade replace it.Don't sacrifice current performance,at least not too much.If 2700x had 8600k performance that'd be a much better buy than the i5,but truth is 2700x can't outperform 8400 overall.Take the most multi threaded games there are currently.Wildlands can load all 16 threads on 1700x for example,I have a friend who did this test.Even if you drop the resolution to 720p it'll not load all 16 threads anywhere near 100%. It's not like the relevance of core performance is gonna vanish anywhere with the introduction higher core count cpus. To sum up,it's not that games are not using 2700x,they are.It's cause the bottleneck is somewhere else why you see it match 8400 overall. You see 2700x hardly improving the performance of 2600x in games,then you test with higher speed/low latency ram and the performance just skyrockets. Latency is key too. You can see threadripper 2950x with 4.4GHz turbo lose to locked 2nd gen ryzens,which seems weird unless you take a look at latency results on these chips.2nd gen ryzens improved over 1st gen here,not by much,it it already shows a little.I'm curious of this new I/O die design on 3rd gen.I wish they don't make a step forward in core count per ccx to then take a step backwards in not improving latency.I want gaming oriented cpus,not threadrippers brought to mid-range segment.

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

the fact is they ARE.what is happening is the cpu load is spread across all threads,which makes those high core count ryzens pretty cool and power efficient chips for gaming.They're not using as much resources as e.g. a hexacore i5.
Where people make a common mistake though is putting equivalence between core performance and thread count. a 2600x will stay at 50% load across all threads where 8600k will get to 70%,but 2600x will still lose in performance numbers cause of what I said-no equivalence. Games prefer faster core. Those multi threaded games do too. More cores is only useful when you're core count limited.Hexacores with no HT are not. Or al least the number of cases where a 8600k will get hampered by the lack of threads is overwhelmingly lower than where Ryzen will be hampered by its single core performance/latency even though it IS in fact using multiple threads.Otherwise core performance and memory speed/latency is all that matters.
Buying something and then hoping for the scenario where it will outperform the competition to happen is silly to me.If it ever happens and you feel you need an upgrade replace it.Don't sacrifice current performance,at least not too much.If 2700x had 8600k performance that'd be a much better buy than the i5,but truth is 2700x can't outperform 8400 overall.Take the most multi threaded games there are currently.Wildlands can load all 16 threads on 1700x for example,I have a friend who did this test.Even if you drop the resolution to 720p it'll not load all 16 threads anywhere near 100%. It's not like the relevance of core performance is gonna vanish anywhere with the introduction higher core count cpus. To sum up,it's not that games are not using 2700x,they are.It's cause the bottleneck is somewhere else why you see it match 8400 overall. You see 2700x hardly improving the performance of 2600x in games,then you test with higher speed/low latency ram and the performance just skyrockets. Latency is key too. You can see threadripper 2950x with 4.4GHz turbo lose to locked 2nd gen ryzens,which seems weird unless you take a look at latency results on these chips.2nd gen ryzens improved over 1st gen here,not by much,it it already shows a little.I'm curious of this new I/O die design on 3rd gen.I wish they don't make a step forward in core count per ccx to then take a step backwards in not improving latency.I want gaming oriented cpus,not threadrippers brought to mid-range segment.

Fair enough but it's not like 2700X is massively slower than 8600K, it's like 15%. If I was buying Intel right (I'm not) I would get 9700K, not one of the hexa i5's. If 9600K had HT I would've praised it. People talk like Ryzen is trash for gaming but honestly it's almost as good and has waaaay better multi-procesing performance at the same price point. I'll take 15% less FPS when I'm already over 100 and 50% more multi-processing any day I'm still betting on it.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Fair enough but it's not like 2700X is massively slower than 8600K, it's like 15%. If I was buying Intel right (I'm not) I would get 9700K, not one of the hexa i5's. If 9600K had HT I would've praised it. People talk like Ryzen is trash for gaming but honestly it's almost as good and has waaaay better multi-procesing performance at the same price point. I'll take 15% less FPS when I'm already over 100 and 50% more multi-processing any day I'm still betting on it.

15% is a lot,that's more than Vega 56 to Vega 64.
It's not trash,no one is saying it's trash except for amd fanbase putting words in other people's mouths.but the balance is not the way a lot of people would like.show me a scenario where a 8c/16t can do something for a regular user that 6c/12t can't. 10-15% more gaming performance is nothing to scoff at on the other hand. current gen i7s are pretty badly priced tbh.I never remember a situation where i7-K cost a 70% premium over i5-K, it's always been 40% here in PL.If 2700x had 8600k's gaming performance I'd probably have bought it already.

 

[ArbitraryAffection]

15% is a lot,that's more than Vega 56 to Vega 64.
It's not trash,no one is saying it's trash except for amd fanbase putting words in other people's mouths.but the balance is not the way a lot of people would like.show me a scenario where a 8c/16t can do something for a regular user that 6c/12t can't. 10-15% more gaming performance is nothing to scoff at on the other hand.

The gamer in me would want the highest FPS in Warframe (9600K would do fine) but the enthusiast in me wants all of the cores ever. But the skint person in me can't afford 9900K. XD

But seriously I'm fine with the 2700X. My FPS is 80+ in Warframe and mostly over 100. Going up to 144Hz kinda makes me think about getting a more gaming-oriented CPU to keep it closer to my max Refresh rate, but at this point I will wait for Zen2 in July~ and maybe get some faster RAM too. Saves me getting a new motherboard (if I was going Intel that is). I still don't want to buy Intel based on principle. I just feel their products aren't priced fairly. Okay , actually, come 2020 I will give Intel a clean slate. Maybe I will get an Ice Lake when their 10nm finally comes. Who knows.

 

[Vario]

Last time I was at Microcenter a salesman advised a customer that a 1050ti @$170 was better than a rx570 4gb @$130.
BS like that really doesn't help either...
I'd rather be offered the RX570 and if needed a good enough PSU @$40

Of course its better... for microcenter ... to sell $40 more in revenue. That salesman should get a promotion, I don't think they even give these guys commission and hes still pushing the expensive products, what a champ!

 

[eidairaman1]

Of course its better... for microcenter ... to sell $40 more in revenue. That salesman should get a promotion, I don't think they even give these guys commission and hes still pushing the expensive products, what a champ!

That's reason why I get informed, if I see someone getting suckered (reason why I stopped seeking advice here) I will inform them (reason why I give advice)

Either way microcenter makes a profit off everything they sell otherwise they dont keep it on the shelf. Heck they still make dough on IGP replacement boards.

 

[John Naylor]

The numbers are the numbers. Arguing about images, phases of the moon, mindshare and other factors is fruitless. Yes,, when a project diminates, they benefit from mindshare ... but that just doesn't happen, you have to earn it. As "educated consumers", we should be beynd that. When you pick up the Wheaties box, the person on the cover is the one who won the gold medal. And when you pick a PC related magazine, the cover belongs to nVidia because the press, web based and print, likes to write about the exciting stuff because it sells more ads. The 1080 Ti took the Gold, the 1080 the silver, the 1070 the bronze, the 1060 just missed a medal, but it finished ahead of everything against it. The idea of tech mags and sites is to get articles read. What they prnt has to do with answrering the questions a) Will they send me a sample and b) who will read in. Only one of those is a judgement call. There is one 570 review here on TP ... there's 4 on the 1050 Ti,

The 570 was the better card but the choice between the 570 and 1050 Ti ***today*** is like arguing about what's better Betmax or VHS. Prices on the 1060 3 GB have dropped to a point where it makes no sense to consider either of them. It's one of those cards kike the 970 where the 960 and it's competion were just left in the dust such that the 970 sold more than all 20+ AMD 200 and 300 series cards combined. The TX 570 is $150 and no it doesn't make sense to spend an extra $20 for the Ti ($170). From a performance stabdpoint, it would make sense to buy the 570 is it was $20 more ... the problem for AMD is, it also makes sense to spend the extra $20 to get the 1060 3GB for $190 A $1000 build w/o a GFX card presents the following Performance / proce ratio:

1050 Ti Build = $1170 / 67.8 = $17.26
RX 570 = $1150 / 97.6 = $11.78
1060 3GB Build = $1195 /104.8 = $11.41

So while there is a huge jump in value per dollar getting the 570 over the Ti, what abandon your evalauation methods / logic and not the 1060 3 GB. None of these cards are adequate for 1440p and at 1080p, the 1060 has the best ROI. But there are other things to think about besides performance. Let's look at some other factors:

Criteria: 1060 / 570 / 1050 Ti

Fan Noise Idle: 0 / 0 / 0 dba
Fan Noise Load: 29 / 31 / 27 dba
Power: 130 / 180 / 75 watts
Temps @ OC: 67 / 74 / 66C

Anything there that might swing a decision ? How about the guy with PSU that doesn't have PCI-E cables and can't use a card that is over 75 watts ? It shouldn't be about hand picking two cards and using a limited scenario; this is what Purch Group does on their media sites to pick "best card under ... [$1 more than the price of the product they been paid to generate interest for]. If we look at the $150 - $200 price range and pick the best card for 1080p, it's clearly the 1060 3 GB.

 

[EarthDog]

Of course its better... for microcenter ... to sell $40 more in revenue. That salesman should get a promotion, I don't think they even give these guys commission and hes still pushing the expensive products, what a champ!

Pretty sure they do get commission. They insist on sticking their sticker on whatever boxes you may walk away with.

 

[Shambles1980]

i generally think that people who work places like that were once enthusiasts and then just stopped caring and now just live in a bubble of what things were when they were enthusiasts.
Its quite easy to do as well.
get a job settle down get a family, the next thing you know what used to be the best just isnt any more and things that used to suck are considered top of the line.

I still don't know how msi and gigabyte managed to get a reputation as a good board mfr and abit went bust.

 

[Vario]

Its a tedious and somewhat sophist thread built around flawed premises such as that 1) the 1050ti was always priced the same price as the 570 over its entire release cycle 2) Amazon sales rank is real time 3) cryptocurrency didn't make the 570 substantially more expensive than the 1050ti for a long period 4) people don't buy 1050ti for Dell, HP, and other OEM desktop office boxes that have low power supply wattage and insufficient power connectors for upgrades, all in order to make the fan boy argument that nvidia buyers are nv-idiots. When is this thread going to die?

i generally think that people who work places like that were once enthusiasts and then just stopped caring and now just live in a bubble of what things were when they were enthusiasts.

That's how it is. You just stop caring and push the products because it is your job to push the products. Retail jobs mold the employee.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Its a tedious and somewhat sophist thread built around flawed premises, all in order to make the fan boy argument that nvidia buyers are nv-idiots.

they're here to inform people if they see someone getting suckered.

 

[Vario]

they're here to inform people if they see someone getting suckered.

I would hope no one is actually buying 1050ti at $150. You can frequently get them for $100 on eBay.

 

[notb]

The numbers are the numbers.
[cut]

While I might not agree on the use of "ROI" in this case (seriously, don't ) the whole post is pointing out an important argument... that many people don't get.

When you have a dense product lineup of GPUs, diversified even further by many different AIB variants, you can make some GPUs excel at a particular thing and target a particular client group. And this specialization will make them relatively unattractive on pure performance/price ratio.

So yes, 1050Ti may not be the best value based on just the basic parameters, but it will be the best buy for many consumers thanks to being small, cool, quiet and powered from PCIe.
In other words: many customers won't see 1050Ti and RX570 as alternatives.

Too understand just how much things like being slot-powered can be worth to customers, you only need to look at RX550 - the best AMD GPU that pulls this of.
The card launched with MSRP of $79, but the cheapest I could find it on Amazon is $110. This is the card we should compare 1050(Ti) to, not the RX570.

 

[eidairaman1]

There are lp 560s...

 

[cucker tarlson]

There are lp 560s...

which are weak cards,unlike bigger polaris.they're 20% slower than 1050ti while they still require a 6-pin and get massacred in efficiency,1050ti has 1.75x perf/wat of 560.
https://www.computerbase.de/2017-06...istungsaufnahme-der-grafikkarte-youtube-video

sorry,but 560s are just too bad in comparison and low price won't change that.actually,the price is not even that far off 1050Ti,which is a bad buy itself.
higher tier polaris cards deliver very good performance despite being power guzzlers (relatively,I still think 200w is rather easy for today's coolers to deal with quietly).rx560 has neither good performance nor efficiency.nor price for that matter.

 

[notb]

There are lp 560s...

Sh.t you're right. There are RX560 cards without a power connector. But they're mostly $130-$140, so it's GTX1050 money (for less oomph).

Are there any low-profile RX560s beside MSI? And that MSI costs $160. Nice. :-D

 

[cucker tarlson]

why are people still buying rx560 and not 1050s/1050ti's ?

 

[eidairaman1]

Power guzzlers is a funny term.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Power guzzlers is a funny term.

English is not my 1st lang,so sorry if I make anything sound weird once in a while they do require beefy coolings solutions despite being 1080/60 cards.

 

[lexluthermiester]

When is this thread going to die?

No one is forcing you to read and participate. Unwatch the thread, move along.

 

[RealNeil]

I would choose 570 over 1050Ti any time. I mean at 1080p you would want as much fps as you can possibly get for an entry level card.

And the 570 does Crossfire too.

 

[lexluthermiester]

And the 570 does Crossfire too.

Another good point!

 

[eidairaman1]

English is not my 1st lang,so sorry if I make anything sound weird once in a while they do require beefy coolings solutions despite being 1080/60 cards.

Dual slot isnt beefy and reasonable. Trislot cooling is beefy.