Nvidia GTX 1050 leaked specifications surface

[Shawn Knight]

With Nvidia having already introduced a trio of Pascal chips in the GP102 (Titan X and Quadro P6000), GP104 (GTX 1070 and GTX 1080) and the GP106 (GTX 1060), the next release in the Pascal lineup is rumored to be the GP107 that’ll arrive onboard the GTX 1050 graphics card.

Details on the looming GTX 1050 have leaked online courtesy of Benchlife (via WCCFTech). Here’s what we know at this hour.

The SKU’s alleged codename, GP107-400, suggests we’ll see a fully enabled chip built on the 16nm FinFET process that’s free of any disabled cores. That said, the source claims the GP107 will feature 768 CUDA Cores, a CPU clock of 1,316MHz and a boost clock of 1,380MHz. The texture fill rate checks in at 84.2 GTexel/s.

The GP107 also reportedly has up to 4GB of GDDR5 memory from Samsung, a memory clock of 1,752MHz, a 128-bit bus width and bandwidth of 112.1GB/s. The publication says we can also expect a TDP of just 75 watts. Whether or not GTX 1050 cards arrive without an auxiliary power connector remains to be seen.

All things considered, the GTX 1050 is expected to compete with AMD’s RX 470 in terms of performance and may slot into the $150 price point when it arrives in mid-October.

As always, keep in mind that this is strictly a rumor as Nvidia has yet to confirm anything.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/66209-nvidia-gtx-1050-leaked-specifications-surface.html

 

[EEatGDL]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare it to the RX 460 since the GTX 1060 3 GB would be in the RX 470 league price-performance wise?

 

[Pewzor]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare it to the RX 460 since the GTX 1060 3 GB would be in the RX 470 league price-performance wise?

No, nVidia isn't like that.
They will continue to sell gtx 750ti at RX460's price point.
nVidia will ofc continue to sell gtx950 then nVidia will introduce 1050 at the ~$150 which is uncontested other then by their very own gtx 950.

Most of the nVidia fans aren't the smartest crowd afterall. This is how nVidia could get away with 3.5gb/4gb, false advertising true async compute on their official pascal intro slides as well as selling a $200 3gb card in Q3 2016.

 

[xKrNMBoYx]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare it to the RX 460 since the GTX 1060 3 GB would be in the RX 470 league price-performance wise?

Well if I remember correctly the RX 460 and GTX 950 are pretty similar with each winning some battles. The 1050 would have less of a challenge with the 460 compared to rhe 470.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Awaiting test results, will announce birth later.

 

[Evernessince]

Smaller memory bus, about half the resources. Should be faster than the RX 460 but not by much. Pretty much what we've come to expect. At $50 more though, that's a really tough sell at this price point. Could be $120 / $150 for 2 GB and 4 GB models respectively. AMD doesn't really have the DX 12 advantage on it's lower end card so it's going to be a really good fight to see which company can own the e-sports / entry level market this gen.

 

[cliffordcooley]

Most of the nVidia fans aren't the smartest crowd afterall. This is how nVidia could get away with 3.5gb/4gb

So much for thinking you were smarter. Why would you say a stupid thing like that for? You actually think everyone that bought nVidia needed more than 3.5gb. Your candle burnt out long time ago.

 

[jpeters36]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare it to the RX 460 since the GTX 1060 3 GB would be in the RX 470 league price-performance wise?

No, nVidia isn't like that.
They will continue to sell gtx 750ti at RX460's price point.
nVidia will ofc continue to sell gtx950 then nVidia will introduce 1050 at the ~$150 which is uncontested other then by their very own gtx 950.

Most of the nVidia fans aren't the smartest crowd afterall. This is how nVidia could get away with 3.5gb/4gb, false advertising true async compute on their official pascal intro slides as well as selling a $200 3gb card in Q3 2016.

quite the arguement.. except when the 970 even with its 3.5 GDDR5 was the had the best performence per dollar for a generation of cards.. so much it force AMD to adjust prices on every single card.. async issue sucks but NVIDIA out performs comparable AMD cards with out it , and that is not a hardware issue but a software one, and im not sure what the problem is with a $200 3 GB card if it competes with the AMD $200 card regardless of how much memory it has..

 

[Jennax1985]

If this card doesn't need an AUX power connector, we could have a real winner for many gamers that have lower end PC's, particularly for those gamers in 3rd world nations where these cards are more expensive due to high importing taxes and such. But if Nvidia is able to sell it for less than $170 in those markets after import taxes, gamers would be able to afford them without having to buy a larger PSU if their desktop PC's have your typical PSU that comes with prebuilt systems. Those budget gamers would have a solid card that should be able to render high to ultra for most games at 1080p, that's going to be a real treat for them. If it doesn't need the AUX power connector, those budget gamers would be able to buy a SSD instead of a PSU to transform their budget prebuilt PC's into decent gaming rigs that surpass both the XBOX One and PS4 for less. If they do indeed come with 4GB of VRAM, that's even better for those gamers that wish to mod Fallout 4 and Skyrim for example being able to install HD textures and such. I think Nvidia should sell it with a minimum of 3GB of VRAM for solid 1080p gaming. Those consoles in Nicaragua for example sell upwards of $500 or more despite it costing $300 here in the US due to high import taxes and the few retailers that sell them only order a few to drive the demand of them thus increasing the price even further..... Nvidia is in position to sell many of those cards if they would sell it for a bit less at $120. That would make many budget gamers really happy, especially those gamers that can't afford the luxuries as us in the 1st world can but can still enjoy high end gaming at 1080p. There shouldn't be an issue for heat and with it using 75W, that's going to keep their electric bills lower for high end gaming, that's a win/win because even those in hot environments will be able to enjoy high end gaming on a low budget without worrying about the card overheating and such.

Before anyone criticizes me about talking about the 3rd world, my family was from Nicaragua...the second poorest country in the western hemisphere, so I know from 1st hand experience how poor gamers are there. Nvidia selling these cards for a bit less would only benefit many of them that are now finally able to afford their 1st modern PC's without having to buy a PSU.

 

[Phr3d]

"a TDP of just 75 watts"

pushing a budget mobo's PCI to its Watt-limit sounds like a poor recipe to one that was burned (pardon) by a premium mobo manufacturer's cost-savings methods..
jus' sayin' -- metheenks it'll have an auxiliary power connector

 

[Puiu]

This will slot right in between the RX 470 and the RX 460.
Why do people think it will compete with the RX 470? From the core count and clocks it should not be in the same performance range.

 

[MaitieS]

And what about gtx 1080Ti?

 

[Bigtruckseries]

I have a second desktop which I use as a media server. Core i7, GTX 745 4GB, 32GB of RAM, Windows 10.

I was thinking about getting a GTX 960 4GB from Microcenter for about $210 but I'd definitely wait if the 1050 is less than $200.

 

[EEatGDL]

So much for thinking you were smarter. Why would you say a stupid thing like that for? You actually think everyone that bought nVidia needed more than 3.5gb. Your candle burnt out long time ago.

Thanks for fighting a discussion I wasn't interested in participating. I thought that aggressive part of his comment is out of place since I didn't state anything technical or criticized anyone or anything, so I don't know where that came from.

Now I am criticizing someone: it seems to me he's an AMD fanboy -in both CPUs and GPUs- and it seems he knows a lot about computer architectures to be smarter than the rest of the crowd or what he may call Intel/NVIDIA fanboys. Because these days, anyone that objectively recognizes something that isn't from AMD better than AMD, automatically becomes a fanboy of its rival.
Let me get something straight: I've been mad at Intel for quite some time for being mediocre for generations of CPUs, yet I still recommend Intel since it is the better choice for gaming; I've witnessed it first hand and I've even bought CPUs for comparison reasons and witness and experience what the reviews say. If AMD's Zen come to be the better choice overall, believe me I will start recommending and using AMD in future builds. So long for the Intel fanboy I am, right?

 

[Squid Surprise]

Can you buy a 460 or 470 for their MSRP yet?

The real test will be if Nvidia can actually make these cards in bulk and have them actually sell for their MSRP... if they perform the way they should (we're basing this on a rumour, so we know next to nothing so far!), they could force AMD to lower the prices on 470 and 460 - which, while crappy for AMD, would be great for consumers...

 

[CaptainTom]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to compare it to the RX 460 since the GTX 1060 3 GB would be in the RX 470 league price-performance wise?

No, nVidia isn't like that.
They will continue to sell gtx 750ti at RX460's price point.
nVidia will ofc continue to sell gtx950 then nVidia will introduce 1050 at the ~$150 which is uncontested other then by their very own gtx 950.

Most of the nVidia fans aren't the smartest crowd afterall. This is how nVidia could get away with 3.5gb/4gb, false advertising true async compute on their official pascal intro slides as well as selling a $200 3gb card in Q3 2016.

Pretty much exactly. If Nvidia felt pressure they would price this at $120 (and the 6GB 1060 at $200), but even with AMD capturing marketshare they still don't seem to care.

 

[CaptainTom]

I have a second desktop which I use as a media server. Core i7, GTX 745 4GB, 32GB of RAM, Windows 10.

I was thinking about getting a GTX 960 4GB from Microcenter for about $210 but I'd definitely wait if the 1050 is less than $200.

$210 for something that can only barely stay ahead of the $110 460?!?!

Lol no need to wait for this when the 470 is $190!

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

It's the number of CUDA cores that's killing it for me. Any of these cards are already 5 generations above what I'm currently using to render 3D sculptures that are sometimes millions of polygons with relative ease. The cores are more than what I have now, sure, but if I can get 1000+ vs the 768 here, then I'm way better off. The 3D sculpting software I use capitalizes on CUDA cores.

 

[Evernessince]

Pretty much exactly. If Nvidia felt pressure they would price this at $120 (and the 6GB 1060 at $200), but even with AMD capturing marketshare they still don't seem to care.

Yep. Nvidia honestly doesn't need to feel pressure either, they can charge more for less simply because of the brand.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Yep. Nvidia honestly doesn't need to feel pressure either, they can charge more for less simply because of the brand.

Well, also because their cards seem to outperform their AMD counterparts rather handily...

 

[CaptainTom]

Yep. Nvidia honestly doesn't need to feel pressure either, they can charge more for less simply because of the brand.

YuP.

It seems like Nvidia's BS is starting to catch up with them in the enthusiast circles, but it will probably be a year before the masses catch up with the knowledgeable.

And even then, AMD would need a MEGA win with Vega to fully capitalize on any potential backlash-momentum.

 

[Evernessince]

Well, also because their cards seem to outperform their AMD counterparts rather handily...

The 1070 and 1080 don't have counter-parts, the 1060's MSRP is higher than the RX 480s at a slight performance increase, and the 1050 is looking to be more expensive with a slight performance increase. Aside from the overly expensive RX 480 right now, the general trend with Nvidia has always been a bit more performance and allot more money. If you look at the R9 290x vs the 780 Ti you can see the R9 290x has aged better. Nvidia cards for the most part outperform their counterparts but I wouldn't call it handily and it's usually at the cost of future performance. Ergo, GTX 970, a $350 card that after only one year is showing memory deficiencies in more demanding games. Usually you'd expect to get more than 2 years out of a video card. Nvidia cards are excellent if you plan to upgrade rapidly but they usually aren't designed with the future in mind.

 

[Squid Surprise]

The 1070 and 1080 don't have counter-parts, the 1060's MSRP is higher than the RX 480s at a slight performance increase, and the 1050 is looking to be more expensive with a slight performance increase. Aside from the overly expensive RX 480 right now, the general trend with Nvidia has always been a bit more performance and allot more money. If you look at the R9 290x vs the 780 Ti you can see the R9 290x has aged better. Nvidia cards for the most part outperform their counterparts but I wouldn't call it handily and it's usually at the cost of future performance. Ergo, GTX 970, a $350 card that after only one year is showing memory deficiencies in more demanding games. Usually you'd expect to get more than 2 years out of a video card. Nvidia cards are excellent if you plan to upgrade rapidly but they usually aren't designed with the future in mind.

Really? A lot more cost and only a little more performance... How about a lot more performance and just a bit more money...

And at the high ends, even when there is an AMD counterpart, they fail badly...

The 970, by the way, is TWO years old - and while there was all that furor about the 3.5gb vs 4gb, all benchmarks still have it outperforming the AMD counterpart...

 

[Evernessince]

Really? A lot more cost and only a little more performance... How about a lot more performance and just a bit more money...

And at the high ends, even when there is an AMD counterpart, they fail badly...

The 970, by the way, is TWO years old - and while there was all that furor about the 3.5gb vs 4gb, all benchmarks still have it outperforming the AMD counterpart...

The GTX 970's counterpart is the R9 390x and no, the GTX 970 wins in very few games, mostly Nvidia sponsored

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview/4

The R9 390x takes a lead in most games, especially above 1080p and in DX 12 / Vulkan titles.

"How about a lot more performance and just a bit more money..."

I'd like to see you provide an example of that.

 

[Squid Surprise]

The GTX 970's counterpart is the R9 390x and no, the GTX 970 wins in very few games, mostly Nvidia sponsored

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview/4

The R9 390x takes a lead in most games, especially above 1080p and in DX 12 / Vulkan titles.

"How about a lot more performance and just a bit more money..."

I'd like to see you provide an example of that.

Except the R9 390X came out a YEAR later.... obviously it should be a bit better... And of course it's "aged better" - it's NOT AS OLD!

And let's look at the most recent prices for the 1060 vs 480.... almost the same (the 3GB is actually cheaper) and it beats it hands down... I refer you to the techspot review of the 1060.... check real world prices on newegg....

We can also look at AMD's last attempt at the high-end gaming market... the FuryX... same price as it's Nvidia counterpart - how'd that turn out?