MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti GAMING X 4G Review @ [H]

iQuasarLV said:
What ever happened to performance per dollar comparisons. Has [H] ever done those on a chart before? At this point I believe that it needs to be implemented.

As an example back 8-4-16 [H] reviewed the RX 470 and actually put in a post mortem editor's note



If a competitor's custom card is 20-25% faster and selling for +$5 over this review's model, how can we trust the reviewers conclusion of value per dollar here? I mean above there is a clean 'however' comment here. Also, if this review was to showcase the "postential" power of a stock 1050 Ti at $139 then why not underclock it to stock levels instead of using a $165 factory overclocked card to base the decision on?

At this point I really have to go with my gut instinct and call hype train here.
Click to expand...

The 470 price cut is reactionary, if the 1050Ti were not a great product I'm sure AMD wouldn't be competing with it using a chip almost double the size.


Lol, you must be joking. Let's start some controversy, Kyle reviewed products based on their MSRP and not the prices you found on Newegg well after the review was written...

iQuasarLV

Another thing, you mention buying an RX470 for 185$. I just checked newegg and I've found prices ranging from 140-160$. So what is the problem exactly ?

Would you have bought an RX470 for 220 ? What about 230$?

Cause I've found RX470 on newegg right now ranging from 170 to 230... So is there a particular reason you bitch and whine about the most expensive 1050ti model not being compared to the cheapest RX470.

"Let me just go off an a stupid, badly thought out tirade against HardOCP and their bias and hope to god nobody possesses the intellectual capacity to go and look at prices on Newegg because I will look like a damned fool" - iQuasarLV
 
Last edited:
Well the 1050Ti just launched - meaning it is at a higher price. What is so good about the 1050Ti is that no APU graphics would even remotely be close. So the 1050Ti is not competing with the APU's. So Nvidia low end can still thrive and make them money. The RX 460 :ROFLMAO:, got handed to big time - holy smokes 40%???. Still the 470 is probably the better perf/$ card if you can get a good deal on one. Polaris 11 needs to be sold significantly less or revised to compete. Nvidia I would think will maintain their laptop share - I don't see AMD competing there nor will gain market share.
 
Ieldra said:
The 470 price cut is reactionary, if the 1050Ti were not a great product I'm sure AMD wouldn't be competing with it using a chip almost double the size.


Lol, you must be joking. Let's start some controversy, Kyle reviewed products based on their MSRP and not the prices you found on Newegg well after the review was written...
Click to expand...

Not quite
upload_2016-10-26_9-49-37.png


I based it off the information given in the article. Why use a card launching at 164.99 and base value conclusions off an OC'd product and then extrapolate that to draw parallels to the reference product @ $139? When done in the past these guys didn't hesitate to point out that glaring point when done by other sites.
 
noko said:
Well the 1050Ti just launched - meaning it is at a higher price. What is so good about the 1050Ti is that no APU graphics would even remotely be close. So the 1050Ti is not competing with the APU's. So Nvidia low end can still thrive and make them money. The RX 460 :ROFLMAO:, got handed to big time - holy smokes 40%???. Still the 470 is probably the better perf/$ card if you can get a good deal on one. Polaris 11 needs to be sold significantly less or revised to compete. Nvidia I would think will maintain their laptop share - I don't see AMD competing there nor will gain market share.
Click to expand...

The 1050ti isn't priced higher at msrp. Nvidia was afforded the chance to price it to fit neatly in between AMD's stack. AMD has a problem with the 460 being that there is too big a gulf in perf between it and the 470. And at the time of the 1050 release, the 460 makes an easy target for the 1050. The prices were obviously adjusted to reflect the position changes, 470>1050ti>1050/460. PPL are just making too much of a small thing right now. And the review was done with pre adjusted pricing so they pitted the obviously much slower 460 vs the 1050ti. Things will obviously turn out different vs the 470 given that it is so very close to a 480. And that is the rub for AMD, the 470 is to fast and the 460 is too slow. Someone got their planning wrong on the low end.
 
thesmokingman said:
The 1050ti isn't priced higher at msrp. Nvidia was afforded the chance to price it to fit neatly in between AMD's stack. AMD has a problem with the 460 being that there is too big a gulf in perf between it and the 470. And at the time of the 1050 release, the 460 makes an easy target for the 1050. The prices were obviously adjusted to reflect the position changes, 470>1050ti>1050/460. PPL are just making too much of a small thing right now. And the review was done with pre adjusted pricing so they pitted the obviously much slower 460 vs the 1050ti. Things will obviously turn out different vs the 470 given that it is so very close to a 480. And that is the rub for AMD, the 470 is to fast and the 460 is too slow. Someone got their planning wrong on the low end.
Click to expand...

No, the rub for AMD is that they're having to undervalue and sell Polaris 10 to compete with GP107.

In a parallel universe Polaris 10 lived up to the hype and NV is having to undervalue GTX 1070 to compete with it. You see where I'm getting ? $$$$
 
iQuasarLV said:
Not quite
View attachment 9462

I based it off the information given in the article. Why use a card launching at 164.99 and base value conclusions off an OC'd product and then extrapolate that to draw parallels to the reference product @ $139? When done in the past these guys didn't hesitate to point out that glaring point when done by other sites.
Click to expand...
That is the only card we could source. Long story short, "cheap" cards are not very well accepted by our readers and video card companies have seen that, and will not send those. I wish in the real world I could just make any unreleased hardware appear magically, but that is simply not the case.

That all said we have a ref clock 1050Ti vs ref clock 470 review working now.
 
iQuasarLV said:
I am looking forward to it when it drops.

I was surprised the article was signed off on given how jumpy the conclusions were. In the past I have seen [H] take the higher road and stick to principles when reviewing products. Here, it seems that several factors were playing against the article.

*Base load clock speed runs @1,392MHz, 7,000MHz Memory, but the reviewed card runs at 1,468-1,493MHz, 7,100MHz memory. Yet, no effort to underclock the card to reference levels to evaluate a simulated $139 model.

*The card was compared to an obviously inferior RX460 which no one will argue. However, at value conclusions using the MSI results and at $165 is given a gleeful view and gold award when just two months ago a superior card "IF" found at $180 was given the same afterthought edit in its review. In the past I would have seen a, "This card is perfect at $140 for this level performance, but at $165 we cannot recommend the premium afforded to this chip. Especially when looking at the competition for only $10 more in such a tightly contested market." Hell I bought the MSI GTX 660 Ti based on a similar viewpoint back in 2012, and it was used until this summer. MSI had rebate programs pushing the comps down to $180ish since early September which would have rounded out a sweet little comparision of +/- $15 around that reviewed card.

*To extend on the above point, the timing to create the review appears to be long in the tooth. While the review was ongoing markets began to stabilize and prices with it. Why no consideration such as
View attachment 9463
were made when going to press with the review. Obviously prices were very competitive when the article went live. It would have saved a lot of face to post one of these at press time to set the stage for a follow up article to reevaluate the prospects of the 1050Ti. Was the question even asked at any point before posting to, "What does the market look like right now?"
Click to expand...

I do think you do have to take in consideration that is this an upgrade path for people still using 750TI who wants a bus powered card. Yes, at $165, you will be better off 470 if you have a extra power connector laying around.

In [H] own review, "The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti annihilates the AMD competition and provides a great level of 1080p gameplay experience for a decent asking price of $139." Even they acknowledge @ $139, the 1050TI is clearly better than RX 460.
 
iQuasarLV said:
I am looking forward to it when it drops.

I was surprised the article was signed off on given how jumpy the conclusions were. In the past I have seen [H] take the higher road and stick to principles when reviewing products. Here, it seems that several factors were playing against the article.

*Base load clock speed runs @1,392MHz, 7,000MHz Memory, but the reviewed card runs at 1,468-1,493MHz, 7,100MHz memory. Yet, no effort to underclock the card to reference levels to evaluate a simulated $139 model.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're listening. There are virtually no reference cards, and they all clock very similarly.
01-Clock-Rate.png


I'm deeply sorry GPU Boost is working out so well, it's running 400MHz higher than stock right out the box.


This gaming X card has a rated boost of 1493 vs 1393 on the "reference" and it runs at 1800mhz out the box. What are you complaining about exactly ?

Kyle's card actually clocks lower than the average, will you make an inflammatory post on reddit about that too ?

1477395781elri10hj3f_3_1_l.png
 
Ieldra said:
I don't think you're listening. There are virtually no reference cards, and they all clock very similarly.


I'm deeply sorry GPU Boost is working out so well, it's running 400MHz higher than stock right out the box.


This gaming X card has a rated boost of 1493 vs 1393 on the "reference" and it runs at 1800mhz out the box. What are you complaining about exactly ?

Kyle's card actually clocks lower than the average, will you make an inflammatory post on reddit about that too ?
Click to expand...

Lol, exactly. This is why I really don't give any thought to anyone who has been complaining about the clock speeds on these cards. They basically overclock themselves non-stop! If there is an issue here its not that reviewers are being idiots for not comparing stock v. stock or whatever, its that rubes are still paying a bunch of extra money for cards that have 100mhz overclocks stamped on the box like it matters at all. The recurring theme with Pascal has been really consistent overclocking results regardless of the "base clock". I have an FE 1080, it clocks to 2100 with the power limit raised. I could have bought an MSI Gaming X or EVGA FTW with a 150mhz higher base clocks for more money or a non-FE base model (had they been available at the time) and ended up with the exact same clocks. I'm willing to bet that the result you see from this 165$ version is about the same as the $139 version since they'll probably all end up clocking to the same place more or less.
 
iQuasarLV said:
Just this morning, due to everyone in that thread recommending a comparison to the RX 470, did Brent concede and issue a statement that they are working on that update.
Click to expand...

If you are going to talk shit on r/AMDFanboyEchoChamber at least get it right. Going forward with a 1050Ti vs 470 was discussed immediately after we got done with this review given the pricing changes we saw. We have followed this formula for a long time. Do the initial review, see what issues still need to be answered, answer those issues. This is nothing new. The fact of the matter is that you are here to post your AMD rhetoric rather than have a discussion or get any questions answered. And that is OK. I find it amusing and entertaining actually.

r/AMDFanboyEchoChamber must have been getting boring over there without your favorite whipping boy for y'all to go as far as to un-ban HardOCP links and discussion. ;)
 
iQuasarLV said:
I am looking forward to it when it drops.

I was surprised the article was signed off on given how jumpy the conclusions were. In the past I have seen [H] take the higher road and stick to principles when reviewing products. Here, it seems that several factors were playing against the article.

*Base load clock speed runs @1,392MHz, 7,000MHz Memory, but the reviewed card runs at 1,468-1,493MHz, 7,100MHz memory. Yet, no effort to underclock the card to reference levels to evaluate a simulated $139 model.

*The card was compared to an obviously inferior RX460 which no one will argue. However, at value conclusions using the MSI results and at $165 is given a gleeful view and gold award when just two months ago a superior card "IF" found at $180 was given the same afterthought edit in its review. In the past I would have seen a, "This card is perfect at $140 for this level performance, but at $165 we cannot recommend the premium afforded to this chip. Especially when looking at the competition for only $10 more in such a tightly contested market." Hell I bought the MSI GTX 660 Ti based on a similar viewpoint back in 2012, and it was used until this summer. MSI had rebate programs pushing the comps down to $180ish since early September which would have rounded out a sweet little comparision of +/- $15 around that reviewed card.

*To extend on the above point, the timing to create the review appears to be long in the tooth. While the review was ongoing markets began to stabilize and prices with it. Why no consideration such as
View attachment 9463
were made when going to press with the review. Obviously prices were very competitive when the article went live. It would have saved a lot of face to post one of these at press time to set the stage for a follow up article to reevaluate the prospects of the 1050Ti. Was the question even asked at any point before posting to, "What does the market look like right now?"
Click to expand...


Well said. A $165 1050ti is idiotic and should have received a Bronze award if that.

Whoever is considering this 1050ti, you can get a 3GB 1060 for the exact same price at Newegg.

MSI GeForce GTX 1060 DirectX 12 GTX 1060 GAMING X 3G 3GB 192-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready ATX Video Card - Newegg.com

MSI GeForce GTX 1060 Gaming X 3GB GDDR5 Video Card $165 w/ Masterpass Checkout + $20 Rebate
 
Last edited:
iQuasarLV said:
Text"
Click to expand...


I think a lot of people are still missing the overall point that the card we did compare the MSI GX 1050 Ti GAMING X with was a $150 card, that puts the two cards $15 apart from each other. The price of the card we used has not changed, it's still $150. The comparison was closer than people want to admit. At the onset of the review, the pricing comparison made sense. I agree, it changed. And we are adapting. I am sorry we cannot move fast enough for you, and others. Keep in mind please our evaluation methods take longer than others, we cannot just whip up reviews, a lot of time and testing goes into them.

XFX Radeon RX 460 DirectX 12 RX-460P4DFG5 4GB 128-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 CrossFireX Support Video Card - Newegg.com

That all said, we've already stated we are doing a RX 470 follow-up. We do adapt to change.

And I would like to reiterate, our conclusion is not factually incorrect. The 1050 Ti does provide a tremendously better experience than an RX 460 when compared. Factually, this is a correct statement with data we can backup. The conclusion in the review is not false.
 
Last edited:
I have to admit that AMD are no fools, they did milk the turd that is rx460 (and sorry, but after [H]'s review of rx460 it would only be just if 1050 Ti got a gold award as well) to the last moment.
 
Actually, the RX 460 is still in a class of its own as the fastest fanless GPU.
 
iQuasarLV said:
Just wow. If you take my stern criticism at [H] editorial practices as AMD rhetoric I wonder. I could give a rats ass if I buy AMD or Nviida Kyle. What I do care about it basing buying decisions on recommendations of trusted sources.
Click to expand...
Well, if you are actually giving a rats ass about Kyle's editorials of late being in particularly on offensive to a certain IHV, then you are like 1%, if you do dislike those.



iQuasarLV said:
Keep up the work sir. I like the articles. Even if I disagree with the conclusions on some. Like I said before I look forward to seeing if the 1050 can beat the 470 at its own game. If possible, man what a slap-in-the-face moment for AMD to pull their heads out their own rear ends if they lost their only plan to control the mainstream market and work up.
Click to expand...
Oh, make no mistake, rx470 is going to beat 1050 Ti so hard it won't be funny.
 
Brent_Justice said:
I think a lot of people are still missing the overall point that the card we did compare the MSI GX 1050 Ti GAMING X with was a $150 card, that puts the two cards $15 apart from each other. The price of the card we used has not changed, it's still $150. The comparison was closer than people want to admit.
Click to expand...

But the MSi 1050ti $165 and the 470 Devil $180 (before the price drop and it was stated in your review of the 470 devil). Its a $15 difference? Just curious why it was left out of the review if $15 is the price difference you were comfortable with?

Either way the review was great, but I think the gold reward for the MSI 1050ti should of been a Silver or Bronze.

Now if it was a baseline 1050ti with the $139 price difference, well thats a whole different ballgame. To me that should of been used against the 460 just to show badly priced the 460 was compared to it.
 
Brackle said:
But the MSi 1050ti $165 and the 470 Devil $180 (before the price drop and it was stated in your review of the 470 devil). Its a $15 difference? Just curious why it was left out of the review if $15 is the price difference you were comfortable with?

Either way the review was great, but I think the gold reward for the MSI 1050ti should of been a Silver or Bronze.

Now if it was a baseline 1050ti with the $139 price difference, well thats a whole difference ballgame. To me that should of been uses against the 460 just to show badly priced the 460 was compared to it.
Click to expand...

Prices also were in flux during that review. When I checked the price of the card before the review it was back up to $199. Yes, it did drop, I see that. AMD also officially dropped prices by $10, after all of our testing was done. It is an unfortunate happening, but these things do happen from time to time when prices are swinging around so much. It also happened at the end of the PowerColor Red Devil review, prices were very different from when we started the review. This is not an uncommon thing to happen. I made the best decision with the information we had, at the time. Now at this time, things have changed, and we will adapt, hence the RX 470 follow-up I am working on. It seems people are trying to attach some sort of motive that isn't present in reality.
 
lolfail9001 said:
Oh, make no mistake, rx470 is going to beat 1050 Ti so hard it won't be funny.
Click to expand...

That is the heart of it in a way because none of these cards line up in performance or price. That leaves the fans and shills to draft narratives to make it a win when in reality the logistics just missed each other on both sides. It's funny when they miscalculate lol. the 1060 vs 480 is a solid match up. The 470 has no dance partner, nor does the 1050ti. I think AMD done goofed this time making the 470 too fast. If it was slower it could have been priced right at the 1050ti.
 
thesmokingman said:
That is the heart of it in a way because none of these cards line up in performance or price. That leaves the fans and shills to draft narratives to make it a win when in reality the logistics just missed each other on both sides. It's funny when they miscalculate lol. the 1060 vs 480 is a solid match up. The 470 has no dance partner, nor does the 1050ti. I think AMD done goofed this time making the 470 too fast. If it was slower it could have been priced right at the 1050ti.
Click to expand...


Each company is trying to get a leg up and for AMD its very important to keep their advantage and that advantage is the 470. For nV the MSRP of the 1050 line is their advantage, AMD by dropping prices has taken some of that advantage away though.
 
thesmokingman said:
That is the heart of it in a way because none of these cards line up in performance or price. That leaves the fans and shills to draft narratives to make it a win when in reality the logistics just missed each other on both sides. It's funny when they miscalculate lol. the 1060 vs 480 is a solid match up. The 470 has no dance partner, nor does the 1050ti. I think AMD done goofed this time making the 470 too fast. If it was slower it could have been priced right at the 1050ti.
Click to expand...
Eh, AMD certainly knew how bad rx460 is, so they have prepared to cut prices on the day of 1050's release in advance. Heck, they had the nerve to release a slide deck comparing 1050 and 470 before 1050's actual launch.
 
thesmokingman said:
That is the heart of it in a way because none of these cards line up in performance or price. That leaves the fans and shine lls to draft narratives to make it a win when in reality the logistics just missed each other on both sides. It's funny when they miscalculate lol. the 1060 vs 480 is a solid match up. The 470 has no dance partner, nor does the 1050ti. I think AMD done goofed this time making the 470 too fast. If it was slower it could have been priced right at the 1050ti.
Click to expand...

It being slower wouldn't make it any cheaper though (for AMD) assuming you mean either a greater number of disabled CUs and/or underclock.

Nobody in their right mind will argue that a 1050ti is faster than a 470,its not even close, but you wouldn't expect them to be.
 
Ieldra said:
It being slower wouldn't make it any cheaper though (for AMD) assuming you mean either a greater number of disabled CUs and/or underclock.

Nobody in their right mind will argue that a 1050ti is faster than a 470,its not even close, but you wouldn't expect them to be.
Click to expand...
I thought the same but then i realized i play SC2 too often:
r_600x450.png
 
Where I live, the cheapest 1050ti (Inno3D compact) is priced at $23 higher than PowerColor RedDragon 460 4GB, and $50 cheaper than 470 of the same line (again, 4GB version)...

The Inno3D is US$160, but this price includes taxes.
 
Why are we talking about Reddit? And since when does [H] use a very bottom of the barrel doorstop like the 460 in their comparisons?
 
he already mentioned that they usually don't, they usually don't even get sent these low level cards...... I don't see how questioning Kyle again about something he already answered wouldn't kind irritate him.
 
razor1 said:
he already mentioned that they usually don't, they usually don't even get sent these low level cards...... I don't see how questioning Kyle again about something he already answered wouldn't kind irritate him.
Click to expand...
I don't expect the AMDFanboyEchoChamber crowd to actually READ what we write. Don't get your hopes up.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Because I asked them to for one and because the RX 460 is the direct competitor as both do not require additional power connectors. I.e. both are targeted at the same market.
Click to expand...

Yep, both are indeed targeted at the same spot. A reference priced GTX 1050 Ti shares a common target with the AMD RX 460 4GB model. Both are meant to be low powered video cards and targeted for a specific level of gaming experience and system build. Our evaluation did conclude on the best value at least compared to that. There is relevant and important information in our evaluation.
 
Last edited:
Man, Polaris 11 competition is GP 107 and the AMD fan boys can thank NVidia for AMD's sudden price drops of the 470 and 460. Which in turn Nvidia may drop the 1050/Ti a little but really - GP 107 turned out damn good! Also it is on the same node process 14nm as AMD. I don't think anyone can blame process for AMD's lower clocks. Nvidia streamlined their gpu, revved it up and got performance way up while keeping power less then before - a rather stunning accomplishment.

Now getting information on the 470 in a slightly higher price range is beneficial but then you need to bring in as well the 1060 I would think. There are folks that have 750Ti's after several years - think about that - their budget going from a $100 to a $150, a 150% increase for one item becomes significant (That is like a 1070 price to a 1080 price difference). Also a Rx460, more so GTX 1050/Ti can play literally thousands of cheaply buyable great games from the past which could never all be playedl 24/7 with just as much enjoyment as a crisp new game with bugs (which in time they may play). It is a prudent way to game if you are rather financially restricted or just have better things to spend your money on being that the games are what really cost the $ if you go with the newest titles. I think this community is more towards pushing the envelope still it is valuable as well for all kind of folks to determine the best card for their money as well.
 
All this other nonsense aside, is anyone else a bit surprised by how much faster NV's cards are than AMD's clock speeds on the same process? Based on the RX480 it kinda looked like AMD had been struggling to clock their parts as high as they wanted. My initial thought was that there might be some differences due to their use of Samsung 14nm FF by GloFo vs the TSMC process NV was using. Sill a possibility that GloFo's results on 14nm aren't matching up with Samsung's fab and obviously architectural differences are the main driver, but I wasn't really expecting 1900+ mhz out of the 1050Ti
 
Activate: AMD said:
All this other nonsense aside, is anyone else a bit surprised by how much faster NV's cards are than AMD's clock speeds on the same process? Based on the RX480 it kinda looked like AMD had been struggling to clock their parts as high as they wanted. My initial thought was that there might be some differences due to their use of Samsung 14nm FF by GloFo vs the TSMC process NV was using. Sill a possibility that GloFo's results on 14nm aren't matching up with Samsung's fab and obviously architectural differences are the main driver, but I wasn't really expecting 1900+ mhz out of the 1050Ti
Click to expand...


1050Ti probably can go higher, most are hitting 1900, it seems the ones that aren't able to keep their clocks at 1900 are the ones that have poor coolers. I really don't think there is much difference between 14nm from GF and TSMC's 16nm, outside of the transistor density which would have a direct link to the heat. And it being such a small chip its harder to remove that heat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top