GTX 1050 and GTX 1050Ti

[NumLock21]

Information about Nvidia's entry level gaming graphic cards, has leaked onto the web. Code name GP107, these are the gpus for the upcoming GTX 1050 and GTX1050Ti. Both of them will have a 128bit memory interface, with a 75w TDP.

Rumor specs, shows the GTX 1050Ti has 768 CUDA Cores, a base clock of 1.2GHz and a boost clock of 1.3GHz. The GTX1050 will have 640 CUDA Cores, base clock of 1.3GHz and boost of 1.4GHz. GTX 1050Ti will get the full 4GB of GDDR5, and non-Ti gets cut down to 2GB of GDDR5. Launch might be in mid to late October with price of $119 and $149 based on the current pricing of GTX 750 and GTX 750Ti.

 

 

http://videocardz.com/63728/nvidia-to-launch-geforce-gtx-1050-and-gtx-1050-ti

https://benchlife.info/gp107-with-2gb-and-4gb-for-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-09252016/

http://www.hwbattle.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=news&wr_id=50728

 

 

 

Update

Cards has officially announced

Credit to @Misanthrope for the link.

 

http://www.overclock3d.net/news/gpu_displays/nvidia_officially_announced_their_gtx_1050_and_gtx_1050ti_gpus/1

[rockking1379]

750 Ti was a great card for light HTPC work. might be nice to have slightly more performance

[vanished]

Fewer cores, fewer TMUs, many things the same... Is the clock speed jump, combined with whatever IPC changes occurred between Maxwell and Pascal enough to make this a significant improvement over the 950?

[Memories4K]

10 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Fewer cores, fewer TMUs, many things the same... Is the clock speed jump, combined with whatever IPC changes occurred between Maxwell and Pascal enough to make this a significant improvement over the 950?

It's not like i'm planning on buying this card but with the 3GB 1060 and older 950/960, ^ this is really what i want to know.

What's Nvidia's strategy here, what's the pull?

[AresKrieger]

7 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

It's not like i'm planning on buying this card but with the 3GB 1060 and older 950/960, ^ this is really what i want to know.

What's Nvidia's strategy here, what's the pull?

Simple the 460 is already weaker in many cases than the 950 so it just has to beat that POS card, that's all this is from what I can tell

 

@Ryan_Vickers It doesn't have to be a significant improvement to beat the 460 since for whatever reason that card is crap by comparison.

[Gullerback]

that boost clock tho....  bleh

[Space Reptile]

but we already have a 1050ti , the 3gb 1060 , i dont see the point at all unless the 1050 is 100$ or less

[DarkBlade2117]

26 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Simple the 460 is already weaker in many cases than the 950 so it just has to beat that POS card, that's all this is from what I can tell

 

@Ryan_Vickers It doesn't have to be a significant improvement to beat the 460 since for whatever reason that card is crap by comparison.

In reality, the 460 isn't meant to compete with the 1050/Ti, imo it has to be beat a 470

[Space Reptile]

46 minutes ago, rockking1379 said:

750 Ti was a great card for light HTPC work. might be nice to have slightly more performance

i built a budget* pc for a pal ( pentium G3250 , H81 board from asus , GTX 750 SC , 8gb ddr3 1600) and it run skyrim on ultra w/ mods vsynced at 60 , the 750 packs quite the punch (but the SC i had boosted to 1580mhz so it might have been a good one )  

 

 

 

*200€ budget

[nobelharvards]

2GB VRAM in 2016.

 

SMH.

 

Which Polaris card is this targeting?

 

Also, 1050Ti has more VRAM than 1060 3GB?

[Energycore]

49 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Fewer cores, fewer TMUs, many things the same... Is the clock speed jump, combined with whatever IPC changes occurred between Maxwell and Pascal enough to make this a significant improvement over the 950?

I don't think so. The $100 GTX 1050 has less CUDA than a 950 while not being that big of a clockspeed jump.

 

I don't have a source at hand, but I remember hearing that clock for clock, Pascal was the same or slightly worse than Maxwell.

2 minutes ago, nobelharvards said:

2GB VRAM in 2016.

 

SMH.

 

Which Polaris card is this targeting?

 

Also, 1050Ti has more VRAM than 1060 3GB?

Nvidia has a tendency to do weird shit with their VRAM amounts. 3.5GB on the 970 while there were full 4GB 960s out there. And this.

[PlayStation 2]

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

Nvidia has a tendency to do weird shit with their VRAM amounts. 3.5GB on the 970 while there were full 4GB 960s out there. And this.

That's kinda wrong.

It is not 3.5GB. It is 3.5GB of VRAM that is running at full speed. It's not that you couldn't use the last 512MB of it.

 

That being said I'm confused as to what Nvidia's doing with the 1050 Ti. I was expecting something a bit more... I guess spectacular(?) compared to what's there.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

That's kinda wrong.

It is not 3.5GB. It is 3.5GB of VRAM that is running at full speed. It's not that you couldn't use the last 512MB of it.

 

That being said I'm confused as to what Nvidia's doing with the 1050 Ti. I was expecting something a bit more... I guess spectacular(?) compared to what's there.

TBH though, for people who run GTX 650ti 2GB still, or GTX 750ti-the 1050ti (the non ti versions always seem poor value IMHO) the 1050ti is probably a perfect card, due to the 75W apparent power draw.

[iamdarkyoshi]

1 hour ago, rockking1379 said:

750 Ti was a great card for light HTPC work. might be nice to have slightly more performance

Its good enough for my steam library at 720p

[DrM]

given pascal's ipc is exactly the same as maxwell, we can already pretty accurately guess the performance of the 1050 ti. it looks to be right around an oc 950, specifically a gigiabyte xtreme (same rops, same cuda cores, higher boost clock and mem clock)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-950-xtreme-gaming,4365.html

i have to say im dissapointed. it should beat the 460, but barely. oc 950s can hit around that freq, and we already have 75w ones. with price drops, there will be no reason to get this over a ~$100 950.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 hour ago, Energycore said:

I don't think so. The $100 GTX 1050 has less CUDA than a 950 while not being that big of a clockspeed jump.

 

I don't have a source at hand, but I remember hearing that clock for clock, Pascal was the same or slightly worse than Maxwell.

Nvidia has a tendency to do weird shit with their VRAM amounts. 3.5GB on the 970 while there were full 4GB 960s out there. And this.

Exactly the same minus color compression improvements and DX12 improvements (4-15% over similar maxwell). The listed boost clocks however are likely to be extreme underestimates from what I gather. I would be surprised if we didn't see boosting up to as high as 1800 consistently at stock outside of stress-test loads (since it will be power limited)

 

45 minutes ago, DrM said:

given pascal's ipc is exactly the same as maxwell, we can already pretty accurately guess the performance of the 1050 ti. it looks to be right around an oc 950, specifically a gigiabyte xtreme (same rops, same cuda cores, higher boost clock and mem clock)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-950-xtreme-gaming,4365.html

i have to say im dissapointed. it should beat the 460, but barely. oc 950s can hit around that freq, and we already have 75w ones. with price drops, there will be no reason to get this over a ~$100 950.

See above.  I would agree with the overall conclusion, but the 950 launched at what 199? This is basically Nvidia's version of the 290 vs 390 (where the 290(x) was selling for 220 dollars or less when the 390 launched and once software improvements rolled out offered literally nothing new).

 

 

[captain cactus]

3 hours ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

In reality, the 460 isn't meant to compete with the 1050/Ti, imo it has to be beat a 470

1060 3GB version already gets beaten by the RX470, don't see how an even more cut down core can beat it.

[ThinkWithPortals]

3 hours ago, Energycore said:

3.5GB on the 970 while there were full 4GB 960s out there.

Why do people do this?

The 970 did NOT have 3.5GB of VRAM, it had 4. It's just that the last .5GB was slower. It's not like the last 512MB was unusable: they weren't.

 

Is a Ford Fiesta unusable just because it's beaten in a drag race by a Mustang?

[PRTI]

18 minutes ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Why do people do this?

The 970 did NOT have 3.5GB of VRAM, it had 4. It's just that the last .5GB was slower. It's not like the last 512MB was unusable: they weren't.

 

Is a Ford Fiesta unusable just because it's beaten in a drag race by a Mustang?

You can count 3.5 since the last 0.5 was slower than a grandma running

[ThinkWithPortals]

7 minutes ago, keNNySOC said:

You can count 3.5 since the last 0.5 was slower than a grandma running

But it was still there and could still be used. Much more slowly, but it was useable. Therefore to say it has 3.5GB of VRAM, even 3.5GB of useable VRAM, is downright wrong.

[NunoLava1998]

next: GTX -7080

[Dabombinable]

11 minutes ago, keNNySOC said:

You can count 3.5 since the last 0.5 was slower than a grandma running

I really need to get 2x 1080p DSR running in Fallout 4 again. Because your being an idiot as the GTX 970 can easily use all 4GB of vRAM without any problem (unless your on a tall building/hill in FO4). Also, do I need to remove my G1 Gaming's cooler so I can take and show you a photo of its vRAM?

[YeshYyyK]

IM SO HYPED!

[PRTI]

19 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

I really need to get 2x 1080p DSR running in Fallout 4 again. Because your being an idiot as the GTX 970 can easily use all 4GB of vRAM without any problem (unless your on a tall building/hill in FO4). Also, do I need to remove my G1 Gaming's cooler so I can take and show you a photo of its vRAM?

That would be very nice

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, keNNySOC said:

You can count 3.5 since the last 0.5 was slower than a grandma running

Ok. It seems that 8GB of RAM is no longer enough since patch 1.7, so I can't play with (gameplay mods) for long before the computer runs out of RAM.