MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti GAMING X vs AMD Radeon RX 470 @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,629
MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti GAMING X vs AMD Radeon RX 470 - With recent AMD price drops, online retailer savings and rebates, the new NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti now has new competition on its doorstep. We will re-evaluate the MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti GAMING X with the now price-comparable AMD Radeon RX 470. The low end enthusiast video card market is getting very crowded.
 
Whew! Good read there. Buyer beware which may or may not be the case either. Any word on the 470D? Is that just a China card, a reduced further Polaris skew. Anyways that may be in the $139 price category and still be faster than the 1050Ti. Polaris 11 looks to be a failure against GP 107 -> Notebooks will most likely keep Nvidia solutions is my thoughts.
 
Great article and evaluation, 100% agreed on every aspect of the conclusion.

My only suggestion would be to test and show results for whichever API runs best on each individual card. I.E. IF Doom OpenGL is faster than Vulkan on the 1050 TI, then test & show results for the 1050 TI in OpenGL. Since APIs shouldn't affect rendering quality, it's only logical that (smart) people will run a game with the API that provides the best experience.... and you guys are all about the best experience, right?
 
tviceman said:
Great article and evaluation, 100% agreed on every aspect of the conclusion.

My only suggestion would be to test and show results for whichever API runs best on each individual card. I.E. IF Doom OpenGL is faster than Vulkan on the 1050 TI, then test & show results for the 1050 TI in OpenGL. Since APIs shouldn't affect rendering quality, it's only logical that (smart) people will run a game with the API that provides the best experience.... and you guys are all about the best experience, right?
Click to expand...

Thank you for your feedback, Vulkan is faster than OpenGL on every video card tested so far.
 
noko said:
Whew! Good read there. Buyer beware which may or may not be the case either. Any word on the 470D? Is that just a China card, a reduced further Polaris skew. Anyways that may be in the $139 price category and still be faster than the 1050Ti. Polaris 11 looks to be a failure against GP 107 -> Notebooks will most likely keep Nvidia solutions is my thoughts.
Click to expand...

Adding on to ask everyone else who might know, why did AMD only launch the 470D in China? And why China? I managed to find pricing for the RX 470D in China:
对标1050 Ti！AMD RX 470D上市：中国特供_AMD显卡新闻-泡泡网
004099139.jpg

According to the chart, the RX 470D is selling for $191 against a GTX 1050 Ti at $176. (Using Google to translate the currency amounts)
 
Wow I mean i knew the 470 would be better, but not by that much....Even overclocked that is shocking.

TY Brent for updated review. Many people including me complained.....And you came threw. Hopefully those AMD Reddit guys leave you and the website alone now!

The one thing that shocks me is....How much more AIB are charging for the 1050ti. They really need to keep it closer to $139
 
Awesome article as usual. I would like to add just one more thought:

Freesync monitors are a lot more budget friendly, so probably a lot more common with users shopping in this price range. This should be a big plus for the AMD cards.

(not like it would be a big deal for nVidia to support freesync .... but well you know it's nVidia)
 
Brackle said:
Wow I mean i knew the 470 would be better, but not by that much....Even overclocked that is shocking.

TY Brent for updated review. Many people including me complained.....And you came threw. Hopefully those AMD Reddit guys leave you and the website alone now!

The one thing that shocks me is....How much more AIB are charging for the 1050ti. They really need to keep it closer to $139
Click to expand...

I found both GTX 1050s lackluster tbh, I expected more before the specs got leaked. Granted they are consuming a less power compared to last years offerings from nVIDIA at this segment, but this performance level was available for quite some time now at almost the same price. I kind of expected the regular 1050 to be on par with a 960, and for the 1050Ti to offer about 80% of the performance of a 1060 3GB model.

In my opinion the GTX 1050 should've been where the Ti model is now, and the Ti should've drawn more power but provide performance about 10-15% under a RX470. Sadly that's just wishful thinking at this point...

Edit: Perhaps they could call it a GTX 1055Ti with 1.75GHz on the core and 8GHz memory? lel.
 
Thanks for the write-up. I really like reviews that look at the "next level" products, so we can see just how much our money is buying. Is it worth it to spend the extra money on the Rx470 or 1060? What gains do I get going with the 1050Ti over the 1050? These sorts of questions are what enter my mind when looking at a product, so a big thumbs up for this review.
 
Great article Brent_Justice ! Another video card beatdown! It is amazing what saving a few more pennies to purchase something nice gets you performance wise in the video card segment.
 
Brent:

Starting, thank you. Every complaint in that first article I had was immediately answered in the first couple pages of the followup.

On to the article. I am blown away at the performance gap that $30 gets you. I obviously was hearing low balled conclusions of 25%, but 40-60% dear god.

Again guys thanks for the conclusions. I feel I spent my money well. I also feel you reinforced your August conclusions that picking up an RX 470 for around $179 could not be beat (I found an MSI Gaming X RX 470 for $184 after tax). In essence you killed two birds with one stone there.

Nothing stings more than buying overpriced product and having to live with it for who-knows-how-long.
 
iQuasarLV said:
Brent:

Starting, thank you. Every complaint in that first article I had was immediately answered in the first couple pages of the followup.

On to the article. I am blown away at the performance gap that $30 gets you. I obviously was hearing low balled conclusions of 25%, but 40-60% dear god.
Click to expand...

Exactly that.
Although i'm on the "other side" from the quoted person ( NVidia side that is), i have to agree that for the 30-40$ increase, you get an almost massive upgrade in performance for the under-200$ category!
Rather surprised by this gap o_O
 
The 470 is obviously a higher performing card at $180 and requires 60% more power. (125W) I can't find it below $180 without a rebate.
The 1050ti is lower performing than a 470, but is $30 to $40 less and requires 60% less power. (75W) It is on Newegg from $139 to $149.

For me, I like the low price and power requirements of the 1050 and the performance is good enough for my bedroom machine.
 
Neutrino said:
Awesome article as usual. I would like to add just one more thought:

Freesync monitors are a lot more budget friendly, so probably a lot more common with users shopping in this price range. This should be a big plus for the AMD cards.

(not like it would be a big deal for nVidia to support freesync .... but well you know it's nVidia)
Click to expand...

Should add in G-Sync is a friggin nightmare

Windowed mode(Borderless or Bordered) it causes a massive impact to FPS; MWO I was getting 8.5 FPS rather than the 40 from fullscreen
Dark Souls 3, so so so much screen tearing, no idea why the hell it was happening so very very badly, 1070 was running it at almost all Max 50+ FPS on a 60Hz Screen in a 60FPS limit game, Gsync was turned on which baffled me more. Turns out if you have Vsync turned on in Nvidia control panel(why is this thing such a post btw apply takes forever) Gsync doesn't work, it needs to be set to application controlled.

So vsync was causing nauseating screen tearing at 55-60 FPS, using Gsync.

So many friggin bugs with it.
 
Glad to see the RX 470 has now been brought into the mix. One card that is really missing from the comparison is the 1050. An MSRP of $109 is $30 more than the 1050Ti and this is a HUUUUGE difference in this price segment. Seeing its evaluation would help to determine its overall value and whether or not saving up some additional cash to upgrade to a RX 460 or 1050Ti is warranted.
 
Yeah, the 1050 Ti is really a non starter at it's current pricing. Looking on Newegg, you can get the XFX 470 RS for $170 after MIR (rebate haters may complain), and that is likely the card you want. 1050 Ti's that aren't the mini version (may not matter) start at $165 shipped, and $170 shipped for the one featured in the article. Nvidia continues to be not very competitive in the low to mid pricing area, seems like it's been that way for a long time.
 
This is why we need someone like AMD around. Competition is good for consumers.
 
britjh22 said:
Yeah, the 1050 Ti is really a non starter at it's current pricing. Looking on Newegg, you can get the XFX 470 RS for $170 after MIR (rebate haters may complain), and that is likely the card you want. 1050 Ti's that aren't the mini version (may not matter) start at $165 shipped, and $170 shipped for the one featured in the article. Nvidia continues to be not very competitive in the low to mid pricing area, seems like it's been that way for a long time.
Click to expand...

Most likely matters, only 1 cooling fan. Most places test with open benches so you could run into warm system and lower OC potential etc.
 
It's quite a contrast if you compare the opinions of this review before and after the inclusion of the 470.
 
Another great article. I do, however, have one nit-pick: the paragraph about additional power on the last page

Not everyone has the system build for high power or even external power. The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is trying to fill a role where external power is not needed in small system builds. The AMD Radeon RX 470 has no hope of achieving this level of low power, it definitely needs its external power and it does eat it for breakfast compared to the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. The GeForce GTX 1050 Ti offers something unique in its low power usage with no required external power connectors on $139 video cards.
Click to expand...

should also be on the Power page and referenced on the first page.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Another great article. I do, however, have one nit-pick: the paragraph about additional power on the last page



should also be on the Power page and referenced on the first page.
Click to expand...

Why? Should they put this in the first page too?

The Radeon RX 470 may eat more power but it also delivers 40, 50 even 60% better performance over the 1050 Ti.
Click to expand...
 
Quartz-1 said:
Another great article. I do, however, have one nit-pick: the paragraph about additional power on the last page



should also be on the Power page and referenced on the first page.
Click to expand...

I'd also point out that total system power draw of 308W at peak OC is low enough for the majority of ePC 430W PSUs. The 1050ti may only use 60% of the power that a 470, but that's a real difference of only 50W. We're now getting into the territory where a single percentage point is approaching an actual single Watt. At that scale, nearly *any* PSU is enough to run these cards.
 
Seeing current prices on the 1050Ti cards available AMD might as well jack up the price again on the 470.

Unless you really need low power and don't have a 6pin connector (and plenty of OEM PCs do) you should get a 470. That extra $30 bucks buys a lot of performance and really makes a difference when using higher IQ settings.

Hopefully this will bring down the price of the GTX1060
 
I was gonna point out that prices for the 1050 Ti are inflated due to launch but that MSI MSRP has me wondering if we won't see that being revised soon. I do hope AMD puts out the RX470D everywhere else that would negate the 140$ price point advantage Nvidia has atm.
 
Last edited:
SighTurtle said:
I was gonna point out that prices for the 1050 Ti are inflated due to launch but that MSI MSRP has me wondering if we won't see that being revised soon. I do hope AMD puts out the RX470D everywhere else that would negate the 140$ price point advantage Nvidia has arm.
Click to expand...
The fact of the matter is that prices are all over the place. When we write GPU reviews, we try our best to compare cards that are close in price. If not, we very much point that out as well. Also, the real world gameplay makes these reviews take a good number of days to get solid data. With the way we review, we just can't simply pull out a bunch of "benchamrks" out like most other sites do. The prices dropped on launch day and we went back and reviewed the two cards that made sense to look at again. I know the fanboys all get their tinfoil hats out and think it is some great conspiracy, but if they ever took the time to read our explanations for our actions, they would understand.....they would still not act like they did though. LOL!
 
World's biggest AMD shills right here at the [H] :rolleyes:

Now to wait for the 1060 3GB to go on sale and see the calls for it vs the 470.
 
It's thanks to the [H] that I bought 2 of these Powercolor Red Devil RX 470's. No regrets at all, especially since they run Project Cars: Pagani at 4k maxed out details.
 
I look at both Pascal GP 107 and Polaris 11 as more Mobile oriented, in that case Nvidia wins hands down. Going to the desktop the RX 470 is almost too good to be true. If those lower prices stick and hopefully a little bit lower and AMD can make money from these - they are the best buy. I am not sure the lower skew 470D is a viable card in the US market because there are probably not enough failed full chips to supply that level of demand. Using good chips to support a lower skew really hurts the bottom line. Better to lower the higher skew price a little then sacrifice better chips. Getting that balance of price, supply and making profits has to be tricky with the RX 470.
 
noko said:
Whew! Good read there. Buyer beware which may or may not be the case either. Any word on the 470D? Is that just a China card, a reduced further Polaris skew. Anyways that may be in the $139 price category and still be faster than the 1050Ti. Polaris 11 looks to be a failure against GP 107 -> Notebooks will most likely keep Nvidia solutions is my thoughts.
Click to expand...
Polaris 11 could be 16CUs but AMD didnt release it for the consumer market it would be really near to or 1050Ti performance with high clocks
 
Yep, and more people will still buy the 1050Ti over the 470 cause NVidia be faster - amirite?
 
Last edited:
PontiacGTX said:
Polaris 11 could be 16CUs but AMD didnt release it for the consumer market it would be really near to or 1050Ti performance with high clocks
Click to expand...
That would also imply power requirements would also go up. For the mobile market P11 falls short perf/w. Now I would think a 16CU version would make it to the desktop or a low frequency version 16CU for mobile but how that would compare to GP 107 I think would fall short. Why are there no 16CU Rx 460's? Looks like it will be updated in the future, I wonder if AMD will just start the 5xx series early next year.
 
A 169-179$ card winning over a 139$ card shouldn't be a surprise. Just as the 1050TI trashes the RX 460 at 109$.

However again AMD have to use more in all aspects to fight. Even if we consider the China only 470D. 232mm2 die vs 135mm2 and a much higher power consumption.

In Europe the cheapest GTX 1050TI is 155€ and the cheapest RX 470 is 189€. While the cheapest GTX 1060 is 199€.
 
Shintai said:
A 169-179$ card winning over a 139$ card shouldn't be a surprise. Just as the 1050TI trashes the RX 460 at 109$.

However again AMD have to use more in all aspects to fight. Even if we consider the China only 470D. 232mm2 die vs 135mm2 and a much higher power consumption.

In Europe the cheapest GTX 1050TI is 155€ and the cheapest RX 470 is 189€. While the cheapest GTX 1060 is 199€.
Click to expand...

People did indeed expect the 470 "winning" - but not "winning" by anywhere from 30-60%.

Given the current market segment pricing, one needs only take a moment to consider that saving up the extra $30 is a no-brainer if they want a better gaming experience for under $200.

I am glad that [H] is putting these comparisons/numbers out there.
 
Last edited:
Stoly said:
Seeing current prices on the 1050Ti cards available AMD might as well jack up the price again on the 470.
Click to expand...
What's that? AMD should lower prices you say?
You trying to ruin this for us?
 
noko said:
That would also imply power requirements would also go up. For the mobile market P11 falls short perf/w. Now I would think a 16CU version would make it to the desktop or a low frequency version 16CU for mobile but how that would compare to GP 107 I think would fall short. Why are there no 16CU Rx 460's? Looks like it will be updated in the future, I wonder if AMD will just start the 5xx series early next year.
Click to expand...
if there are lower power requirements you can reduce clock speed for each P-State, voltage for memory and core and reduce DRAM frequency and the IHV custom versions would have higher clock speed and really given the difference the clock speed and 16CU would close the gap or get same performance as 1050Ti power consumption isnt a concern since most people should ave at least a 450w+ psu which can handle easily 120-140w,and it seems AMD reserved some of the 16CUs GPUs for Radeon Pro line
 
Last edited:
atp1916 said:
People did indeed expect the 470 "winning" - but not "winning" by anywhere from 30-60%.

Given the current market segment pricing, one needs only take a moment to consider that saving up the extra $30 is a no-brainer if they want a better gaming experience for under $200.

I am glad that [H] is putting these comparisons/numbers out there.
Click to expand...

If you have the extra 30$ and there's no problem using extra power then sure, but the fact is all the 1050Tis perform the same more or less, so you can safely buy the cheapest one and it's simply in a league of it's own as a low power card.

Some people are looking to minimize the expense.

This gpu competes with the RX460. The RX470 dropping in price to compete with it is a consequence of the RX460 failing to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top