I think for what they are performance is nice

Hi HH, Great article thanks for taking the time to do it. Couple of questions I wanted to ask. Where does the 280x 3gb slot into the list, and when you do the overclocked comparison is that comparing the others at what they OC'd at. If not would you consider spread sheeting your past OC'd results into a table in your reviews, so we can compare roughly what they rate at there OC.?

TahitiXT performs similiar to TongaXT so 280X should be up there with a 380X.

So across most titles tested here... In DX11: -1050 beats RX460 but performance is generally **** on both cards (this is expected) -RX470 beats 1050Ti easily with great price/perf In DX12: -RX460 beats 1050 but 1050Ti is a nudge ahead with generally **** performance across the board (this is somewhat surprising?) -RX470 laughably thrashes all of these. Highlighting its tremendous price/perf even more. Current US Pricing: RX 460 = $99 GTX 1050 = $110 GTX 1050Ti = $140 RX 470 = $180 Will be interesting to see how pricing fluctuates with demand in the next couple weeks... Conclusion: Don't waste your $ on RX460, 1050, or 1050Ti. Just buy a damn RX470 4Gb if you're in the sub $200 segment. RX 470 is easliy $20 cheaper than 1060 3Gb right now even before the market deflates to the new lower MSRP.

http://www.coolmod.com/msi-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-gaming-x-4gb-gddr5-tarjeta-grafica-precio 216 euros here XD, like a rx480 of 4gb

http://www.coolmod.com/msi-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-gaming-x-4gb-gddr5-tarjeta-grafica-precio 216 euros here XD, like a rx480 of 4gb

How the card that supposed to be 139€ ended up being 180€? Just like this guy said here, 1050ti cost as much as 1060 3GB. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2upBKdu9z74

Their segment is to beat 460. 1050 is a good 10-15% faster than the 460 while being the same price. 1050Ti is supposed to cover the middle ground. 1060 3GB beats the 470 so that's covered already. So what exactly is your point? Do you not understand what those cards are targeted at? With your reasoning, the 460 470 and 480 are all underpowered and meh.

Where are you seeing that the 1050 is clearly faster? In Hitman and Doom, the 1050 is upwards of 50% slower than the 460. That BS "relative performance" chart is for 1440, yet these cards are aimed at 720/1080..... You can't really be THAT biased towards NVidia that you'd intentionally use a chart for a resolution that these cards can barely display.....

Where are you seeing that the 1050 is clearly faster? In Hitman and Doom, the 1050 is upwards of 50% slower than the 460. That BS "relative performance" chart is for 1440, yet these cards are aimed at 720/1080..... You can't really be THAT biased towards NVidia that you'd intentionally use a chart for a resolution that these cards can barely display.....

The 1050 is faster than the 460 in the 1080p relative performance chart at as well. That being said, techpowerups numbers for the 460 look overall lower than Guru3D. Hilbert gets 62fps @ 1080p in Doom while TPU only gets 40.

How the card that supposed to be 139€ ended up being 180€? Just like this guy said here, 1050ti cost as much as 1060 3GB. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2upBKdu9z74

It's obviously a country dependent thing. There are 1050Ti models up on newegg for $140 in the US. Edit: For the record, I think the RX470 is the better buy in either case. It's like several bucks more for significantly better performance. It's arguably the best bang for buck card out at the moment.

It's obviously a country dependent thing. There are 1050Ti models up on newegg for $140 in the US. Edit: For the record, I think the RX470 is the better buy in either case. It's like several bucks more for significantly better performance. It's arguably the best bang for buck card out at the moment.

Both 1060 3GB and rx470 offer much more than 1050ti. Performance across the board in 19 tested games : https://s11.postimg.org/khguzc1r7/Untitled.png

Where are you seeing that the 1050 is clearly faster? In Hitman and Doom, the 1050 is upwards of 50% slower than the 460. That BS "relative performance" chart is for 1440, yet these cards are aimed at 720/1080..... You can't really be THAT biased towards NVidia that you'd intentionally use a chart for a resolution that these cards can barely display.....

Bias? lol. 1440P usually makes the AMD cards look a little better due to poor drivers in DX11. 1080P performance chart is no different. https://tpucdn.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1050_Ti_Gaming_X/images/perfrel_1920_1080.png I have no idea where you're pulling 50% from. 1050 is only 22% slower in hitman and 9% slower in vulkan doom. You can't base anything off of a a badly optimized console port, that's bias.

I have no idea where you're pulling 50% from. 1050 is only 22% slower in hitman and 9% slower in vulkan doom. You can't base anything off of a a badly optimized console port, that's bias.

To be fair, he's pulling it from the review of the thread that your posting in. http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=26298&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1 Why there is a such a big performance difference between Hilbert's 460 and TPU's, I couldn't tell you - but a quick glance at other sites shows numbers closer to Hilbert's. There must either be a driver difference or some setting difference that only effects the RX460 as the rest of the numbers look similar.

Ok, UK prices. If it's RX460 4GB vs GTX1050TI 4GB = GTX1050TI for £20 more. (£140) £40 more from that to go RX470 4GB or GTX1060 3GB. (£180) add another £20 to go RX480 4GB. (£200) add another £30 to go GTX1060 6GB. (£230) add another £4 to go RX480 8GB. (£234) I think GTX1050TI is the one if you must keep budget under £150. Just don't forget it's a budget card and you'll be fine. For most of us here at Guru3d...nothing to see tbh cause it's a battle of the turds.

To be fair, he's pulling it from the review of the thread that your posting in. http://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=26298&admin=0a8fcaad6b03da6a6895d1ada2e171002a287bc1 Why there is a such a big performance difference between Hilbert's 460 and TPU's, I couldn't tell you - but a quick glance at other sites shows numbers closer to Hilbert's. There must either be a driver difference or some setting difference that only effects the RX460 as the rest of the numbers look similar.

Ah derp. Anyways seems to be the oddball here, most reviews show them about equal or better. I haven't seen any other reviews where the difference is >10% But this could be dependent on a specific location if it's shader limited, memory limited etc. http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/GPU/GTX-1050-REVIEW/GTX-1050-REVIEW-64.jpg Edit: Yeah the discrepancy is due to here the 460 is 4GB vs 2GB 1050. 2GB vs 2GB is a fair comparison. With the same amount of VRAM, results are much closer.

Bias? lol. 1440P usually makes the AMD cards look a little better due to poor drivers in DX11. 1080P performance chart is no different. I have no idea where you're pulling 50% from. 1050 is only 22% slower in hitman and 9% slower in vulkan doom.

I'm going by the numbers Hilbert has. Hilbert only compares the cards he's reviewed. I quit reading TPU after pointing out a bug in GPU-Z that only seemed to affect AMD GPUs and getting attacked for it.

You can't base anything off of a a badly optimized console port, that's bias.

If people are playing the game, they should buy the card that performs best in the game. That's not bias, it's common sense. Both the 1050 and 1050Ti as well as the RX 460 all perform like crap at 1080 or higher and both NVidia and AMD should be embarrassed to be releasing these as entry-level gaming cards.

the 1050 is really that i spectect, but here all DX11 games are Nvidia-optimized but then RX460 is faster on DX12/Vulkan even in performance per Watt...

I'm going by the numbers Hilbert has. Hilbert only compares the cards he's reviewed. I quit reading TPU after pointing out a bug in GPU-Z that only seemed to affect AMD GPUs and getting attacked for it. If people are playing the game, they should buy the card that performs best in the game. That's not bias, it's common sense. Both the 1050 and 1050Ti as well as the RX 460 all perform like crap at 1080 or higher and both NVidia and AMD should be embarrassed to be releasing these as entry-level gaming cards.

Well regardless of how you feel towards TPU, the cards perform roughly the same. Only reason you're seeing a huge difference is because it's 2GB vs 4GB. And i still don't get your reasoning, hitman is not a popular game with poor reviews. Also one of the worst optimized games this year. And you should get over that attack. People have bad days. I pointed out a bug on MSI AB on 2 different systems(reproducible) and unwinder was a total asshat saying I didn't know how to use a computer, i was stupid, etc. So not much point in putting much thought into it.

I have a maximum budget of about €300 for a new graphics card (so no GTX 1070 or 1080) and I was initially looking at GTX 1060 but now I think the RX 480 looks like the best option for me: 1. Was going to get the cheap 4GB Sapphire Radeon RX 480 NITRO+ model at €224 and 1208MHz but I'm not sure it can sustain 60FPS in Ultra in the latest AAA games. 2. There is the same model of above at 8Gb for €268 but same clock speed so don't think it would be any different at all. 3. The OC version of this for €285 - 8GB Sapphire Radeon RX 480 NITRO+ OC This has same base clock but boost clocks go from 1306Mhz in previous models to 1342MHz in this. So does anyone reckon the extra €60 premium is worth it to go from 4Gb to 8Gb OC model? The thing is, lots of the reviews of the RX480 on some sites are using the OC model without saying it to make the card look better in benchmarks, so I'd be worried the standard 1306MHz boost model would be less than 60FPS all the time. ps. reason why I rule out GTX 1060 model is I hear NVidia won't allow SLI on this, whereas I could do 2 x RX 480 in Crossfire in future... Should i just get the base 4Gb model and be done for €224? Have i missed out anything else in this price range?

I have a maximum budget of about €300 for a new graphics card (so no GTX 1070 or 1080) and I was initially looking at GTX 1060 but now I think the RX 480 looks like the best option for me: 1. Was going to get the cheap 4GB Sapphire Radeon RX 480 NITRO+ model at €224 and 1208MHz but I'm not sure it can sustain 60FPS in Ultra in the latest AAA games. 2. There is the same model of above at 8Gb for €268 but same clock speed so don't think it would be any different at all. 3. The OC version of this for €285 - 8GB Sapphire Radeon RX 480 NITRO+ OC This has same base clock but boost clocks go from 1306Mhz in previous models to 1342MHz in this. So does anyone reckon the extra €60 premium is worth it to go from 4Gb to 8Gb OC model? The thing is, lots of the reviews of the RX480 on some sites are using the OC model without saying it to make the card look better in benchmarks, so I'd be worried the standard 1306MHz boost model would be less than 60FPS all the time. ps. reason why I rule out GTX 1060 model is I hear NVidia won't allow SLI on this, whereas I could do 2 x RX 480 in Crossfire in future... Should i just get the base 4Gb model and be done for €224? Have i missed out anything else in this price range?

If you plan on going crossfire, get the 8GB Sapphire Nitro + gets my vote On Topic The low performance of the 1050/ti was expected considering the specs