Thought Experiment: 1050 equivelent to which X80?

[ZLoth]

So, here is a thought experiment.... the performance of a 1050 is about equivalent to which generation of the nVidia x80 card? If we go by card generation, then it would be something along the lines of 680 -> 770 -> 960 -> 1050. But, I have the funny feeling that it's going to be a little more complicated than that.

BTW: No, I'm not interested in upgrading to the 1050. It would be a downgrade from my 980.

 

[Factum]

GTX 680 was an anomaly...GK104 SKU PR-named like a Gx1x0 SKU...you premise is flawed, so any conclusion will be flawed...

 

[doubletake]

?? So are the 980 and 1080 (GM204 & GP104).

OP's not exactly conducting a scientific method-compliant experiment here, just wants to know what older high-end card the 1050 performs like :|

To OP:

idk, a 680 is probably right. They both have 32 ROPS, similar bandwidth (192 vs 112GB/s but with Pascal's massively improved compression tech); the 680 only wins out with a much higher TMU count (128 vs 40) but I can't imagine that would make for a large performance difference. I haven't seen many benchmarks that feature both of these cards, but in Techspot's Battlefield 1 results, the 680 performs on par with the 1050Ti, while in Gears of War 4, it's outperformed by the regular 1050. You might want to find other sites that keep a large roster of previous and current gen cards for performance reviews and see if you have any luck.

 

[ZLoth]

OP's not exactly conducting a scientific method-compliant experiment here, just wants to know what older high-end card the 1050 performs like :|

It's slightly more than that. The x80 cards tend to be the most expensive cards for that line, while the x50 cards are the budget end of cards. Still, each generation has performance improvement and feature enhancement. While we are unable to compare on features set, we can compare on the performance. It would be fascinating what the performance from what was once considered "top-of-the-line" four-five years ago to what is now considered "budget-minded".

 

[Factum]

?? So are the 980 and 1080 (GM204 & GP104).

OP's not exactly conducting a scientific method-compliant experiment here, just wants to know what older high-end card the 1050 performs like :|

To OP:

idk, a 680 is probably right. They both have 32 ROPS, similar bandwidth (192 vs 112GB/s but with Pascal's massively improved compression tech); the 680 only wins out with a much higher TMU count (128 vs 40) but I can't imagine that would make for a large performance difference. I haven't seen many benchmarks that feature both of these cards, but in Techspot's Battlefield 1 results, the 680 performs on par with the 1050Ti, while in Gears of War 4, it's outperformed by the regular 1050. You might want to find other sites that keep a large roster of previous and current gen cards for performance reviews and see if you have any luck.

The 980 got company real fast, by the 980 Ti...a GM200 SKU.

The 1080 is NVIDIA doing the same thing as they did with the GTX680...using a GPxx4 since AMD has no competition.

Both the GTX 680 and the GTX 1080 were signs of a lacking repsonse from AMD...and the gap has increased from the GTX680 to the GTX 1080.

 

[doubletake]

Real fast? The 980Ti was 9 months later (and Titan X was only 6 mos). That's not much faster than the 11 months it took between the 680 and the Titan.

I know what you were getting at, and I'm not trying to argue whether or not every x80 card since Kepler has essentially been what was historically a lower-tier card (smaller mem bus, SM count, etc etc), I just meant to say that so what? I figured OP had pricing in mind rather that architectural revision, and (going by OP's second post), it seems I was closer to the mark than you.

 

[JustReason]

The 980 got company real fast, by the 980 Ti...a GM200 SKU.

The 1080 is NVIDIA doing the same thing as they did with the GTX680...using a GPxx4 since AMD has no competition.

Both the GTX 680 and the GTX 1080 were signs of a lacking repsonse from AMD...and the gap has increased from the GTX680 to the GTX 1080.

You smoking something there? The 680 barely hung on to the 7970 and the 7970 was king till the Titan. The 1080, yes it has no competition. But you are so VERY VERY VERY wrong on the 680. As you say so many times, sounds like a fanboy...

 

[PontiacGTX]

The 980 got company real fast, by the 980 Ti...a GM200 SKU.

The 1080 is NVIDIA doing the same thing as they did with the GTX680...using a GPxx4 since AMD has no competition.

Both the GTX 680 and the GTX 1080 were signs of a lacking repsonse from AMD...and the gap has increased from the GTX680 to the GTX 1080.

Do you expect nvidia would wait until AMD released their cards to release their "Compute oriented GPU"(with crippled FP64) ? aslo when the 680 launched the 7970 was already in the market by a couple of months so there was already a better GPU on the market at the same time, only it had worse performance due to driver being not enough developed.

 

[Factum]

...a better GPU on the market at the same time, only it had worse performance due to driver being not enough developed.

Users buy performance... *wink-wink*

 

[PontiacGTX]

Users buy performance... *wink-wink*

Spoiler: HD7970 GHz

Spoiler: 1080

Spoiler: R9 280X

Spoiler: 1080

Spoiler: 1440

 

[Factum]

Try with launch benches...remember your own words...

EDIT:
HardOCP's review from launch:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012...orce_gtx_680_video_card_review/1#.WBg0ty3hBOQ

 

[ZLoth]

Here is a story from Hardware Unboxed: Can The GTX 1050 Ti Outperform 2012’s $500 Flagship GTX 680? For those of you in the mood of TL;DR.... the performance of the 1050Ti is about the same or slightly better than the 680, however, the power consumption is much less.