Radeon RX 570 vs. GeForce GTX 1050 Ti: What's the best $150 GPU?

[Julio Franco]

If you're after an inexpensive graphics card to play games, which way do you go? Currently $150 will get you either the Radeon RX 570 4GB or the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, both solid options that have been out for a long time, but not necessarily at this attractive price point.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1777-geforce-1050ti-vs-radeon-570/

 

[Vulcanproject]

RX570 has always been the killer sweet spot for budget 1080p, it's actually very close to being as fast as the RX580 and it still retains 4GB of memory. The cut down GTX1060 is rather less attractive with only 3GB, and the 1050Ti is a lot slower as this demonstrates.

However at this point RX570 is quite old (best part of two years) alongside the alternatives. You probably would already be on this generation by now. I would be waiting to see what is offered by AMD and Nvidia in the next 6 months to replace cards at this price point.

Failing that when we get closer to new cards this year there is a high chance of further price cuts to Polaris as we have seen from the Vega models.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

I bought the 1050ti before crypto-madness for $125. I'm pretty happy with that still. The power question and also a compatibility issue (a BIOS based Dell Precision t3500 is not UEFI) make me wonder about the suitability of the RX570. Looks like the 570 is a winner for recent machines with good PSUs

 

[ShObiT]

I have a friend that just got 1050 Ti while I was recomending AMD for him, its seem Green color have some psicological effect on normal people. I'm dying to see his reaction to these benchmarks...

 

[Nobina]

That's a pretty big difference. I bought 1050 Ti about a year ago but at the time RX570 was much more expensive where I'm from. I can actually sell it and buy used RX570 for the exact same price.

 

[torchyear]

A few AU retailers sell 4GB RX580s for the same price as the RX570, or for $10-15 extra. Definitely worth shopping around.

 

[wildkat]

All good stuff but it ignores one very important factor - The 570 is a power hog that can peak at 200W+ in extreme situations and pulls 150W+ in normal gaming. Given the market is for lower cost gamers, the need for a beefy power supply - AMD recommends a 450W minimum - doesnt make sense. Compare that to the 1050Ti that won't draw a single watt over the 75W rating.

I just put a 1050ti in an old Dell Studio XPS 8100 (i7 870, 2.93ghz) with a 350W PSU. The 570 wasn't even an option because I didnt want to stress the system that much (Irony - it came with a ATI Radeon HD 5770 which also needs a 450W PSU according to ATI which leads me to believe Dell was throttling it). Yes, I could have replaced the PSU too but if you have ever done that in a Dell, you know why I didnt.

Bottom line, while they are price competitive, the 1050ti is BY FAR the best price/FPS/Watt performer out there and if you are building a lower end system or upgrading a lower end system, it is a great GPU.

 

[Nightfire]

I think the wider 256 bit bus is paying off for the rx 470 vs the 128 bit on the 1050ti. This is part of the reason that the 7970 held up well against the GTX 680.

AMD has been pretty good about giving their GPUs a wider bandwidth. This usually has a bigger effect on performance over its age than frame buffer size.

Case in point: The FuryX has held up very well against the GTX 980ti due to the high bandwidth despite the 4 GB of frame buffer that so many critisized.

 

[Swiss20amk]

All good stuff but it ignores one very important factor - The 570 is a power hog that can peak at 200W+ in extreme situations and pulls 150W+ in normal gaming. Given the market is for lower cost gamers, the need for a beefy power supply - AMD recommends a 450W minimum - doesnt make sense. Compare that to the 1050Ti that won't draw a single watt over the 75W rating.

I just put a 1050ti in an old Dell Studio XPS 8100 (i7 870, 2.93ghz) with a 350W PSU. The 570 wasn't even an option because I didnt want to stress the system that much (Irony - it came with a ATI Radeon HD 5770 which also needs a 450W PSU according to ATI which leads me to believe Dell was throttling it). Yes, I could have replaced the PSU too but if you have ever done that in a Dell, you know why I didnt.

Bottom line, while they are price competitive, the 1050ti is BY FAR the best price/FPS/Watt performer out there and if you are building a lower end system or upgrading a lower end system, it is a great GPU.

I've actually upgraded an HP office PC with an rx 580 8 gig and you're talking nonsense . Never went past 120 Watts Peak and average when gaming is ~105. I mean it's a more power hungry card than the 570 and I even over clocked it ffs.

If the card is gonna draw more than the 75w over PCI then it doesn't matter if its 80 or 150 watts imo. Electricity is laughably cheap and you'd need to use it for many years to even negate the price advantage of the 570 over the 1050 ti.
How much mindless brand loyalty can you have to disregard a 43% performance advantage at a lower price...
Worst thing is you might make a less informed person, that happens to read your comment make an uninformed and disadvantageous buying decision. Smh

 

[Nightfire]

Some like Wildkat will mention the power difference, which is fair.

However, the performance difference is so massive that you could always down clock the rx570 to match performance at which point the power difference would be negligible.

 

[Baykah]

All good stuff but it ignores one very important factor - The 570 is a power hog that can peak at 200W+ in extreme situations and pulls 150W+ in normal gaming. Given the market is for lower cost gamers, the need for a beefy power supply - AMD recommends a 450W minimum - doesnt make sense. Compare that to the 1050Ti that won't draw a single watt over the 75W rating.

I just put a 1050ti in an old Dell Studio XPS 8100 (i7 870, 2.93ghz) with a 350W PSU. The 570 wasn't even an option because I didnt want to stress the system that much (Irony - it came with a ATI Radeon HD 5770 which also needs a 450W PSU according to ATI which leads me to believe Dell was throttling it). Yes, I could have replaced the PSU too but if you have ever done that in a Dell, you know why I didnt.

Bottom line, while they are price competitive, the 1050ti is BY FAR the best price/FPS/Watt performer out there and if you are building a lower end system or upgrading a lower end system, it is a great GPU.

It is definatly a great little GPU for systems that dont have a free 8 pin.

 

[Evernessince]

All good stuff but it ignores one very important factor - The 570 is a power hog that can peak at 200W+ in extreme situations and pulls 150W+ in normal gaming. Given the market is for lower cost gamers, the need for a beefy power supply - AMD recommends a 450W minimum - doesnt make sense. Compare that to the 1050Ti that won't draw a single watt over the 75W rating.

I just put a 1050ti in an old Dell Studio XPS 8100 (i7 870, 2.93ghz) with a 350W PSU. The 570 wasn't even an option because I didnt want to stress the system that much (Irony - it came with a ATI Radeon HD 5770 which also needs a 450W PSU according to ATI which leads me to believe Dell was throttling it). Yes, I could have replaced the PSU too but if you have ever done that in a Dell, you know why I didnt.

Bottom line, while they are price competitive, the 1050ti is BY FAR the best price/FPS/Watt performer out there and if you are building a lower end system or upgrading a lower end system, it is a great GPU.

Please read the article. This is specifically addressed in the conclusion which is something I'd even expect people who skip to the end to catch.

 

[JRMBelgium]

Finally a good review. But I'm only 90% satisfied about it. Since this clearly is a 1080p card, it think it would be more usefull if he posted 1080p ultra and 1440p medium since it's more likely to run medium settings at that resolution. It never makes sence to benchmark games at settings nobody is ever going to play on. People think that Ultra settings vs medium settings just scales down like you expect, but it really doesn't in certain games.

 

[Easymike]

This is kind of a bogus comparison. While the 580 are matched with the 1060, the gap between 1050 and 1060 is much greater than 580 to 570. Honestly, the 570 is really comparable to the 3gb 1060 given the reduced computing ability of each. I will say that when mining was at it's worst, I upgraded a friend's system with a 1050ti instead of AMD just because of the huge price difference at the time, plus the lower power/heat since he had a poorly ventilated mid tower and low grade motherboard.

I tend to ramble. Long story short, others have said that the 1050 is less power hungry, and this is important if you have limited budget for a better PSU, but if you're building new and have a well ventilated case, you would be better off with the AMD card.

Long story even longer, 1050ti is not in the same performance class as the 570, or even the 470. They're for different consumers.

 

[JoshT]

All good stuff but it ignores one very important factor - The 570 is a power hog that can peak at 200W+ in extreme situations and pulls 150W+ in normal gaming. Given the market is for lower cost gamers, the need for a beefy power supply - AMD recommends a 450W minimum - doesnt make sense. Compare that to the 1050Ti that won't draw a single watt over the 75W rating.

I just put a 1050ti in an old Dell Studio XPS 8100 (i7 870, 2.93ghz) with a 350W PSU. The 570 wasn't even an option because I didnt want to stress the system that much (Irony - it came with a ATI Radeon HD 5770 which also needs a 450W PSU according to ATI which leads me to believe Dell was throttling it). Yes, I could have replaced the PSU too but if you have ever done that in a Dell, you know why I didnt.

Bottom line, while they are price competitive, the 1050ti is BY FAR the best price/FPS/Watt performer out there and if you are building a lower end system or upgrading a lower end system, it is a great GPU.

Drop the core clock on the Rx 570 to 1050 mhz. Drop the voltage to 1v or 0.95v. Suddenly the Rx 570 is only drawing 90w and still beating the 1050 ti by a good 30%. Rx 570 is way more flexible. You can get the 570 down to 75-80w easy while still being noticeably faster than the 1050 ti, or overvolt it and oc' it to destroy the 1050 ti, for cheaper. It's the better card with a single exception - you have an absolutely trash OEM PC that is over 6 years old with no 6+2 pin PCIe connector, In which case, you're probably going to be limited by your i5 3470 at 1080p anyway.

 

[Nobina]

This is kind of a bogus comparison. While the 580 are matched with the 1060, the gap between 1050 and 1060 is much greater than 580 to 570. Honestly, the 570 is really comparable to the 3gb 1060 given the reduced computing ability of each. I will say that when mining was at it's worst, I upgraded a friend's system with a 1050ti instead of AMD just because of the huge price difference at the time, plus the lower power/heat since he had a poorly ventilated mid tower and low grade motherboard.

I tend to ramble. Long story short, others have said that the 1050 is less power hungry, and this is important if you have limited budget for a better PSU, but if you're building new and have a well ventilated case, you would be better off with the AMD card.

Long story even longer, 1050ti is not in the same performance class as the 570, or even the 470. They're for different consumers.

The fact that they're at the same price point makes them perfectly comparable. No reason to go for Nvidia here unless you have below 300w PSU which is unlikely.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

In any system where power is of no concern, the 570 is the clear winner.

If you are upgrading a OEM desktop with no PCIe power, such as optiplex desktops, the 1050ti is the winner, otherwise, go with a 570. Even then, MSI makes a large core 560 low profile with no external power that gives the 1050ti a run for its money, and can be found for $150 as well.

Nvidia just offers little to nothing in the low end segment, and faces stiff competition in mid range.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

All good stuff but it ignores one very important factor - The 570 is a power hog that can peak at 200W+ in extreme situations and pulls 150W+ in normal gaming. Given the market is for lower cost gamers, the need for a beefy power supply - AMD recommends a 450W minimum - doesnt make sense. Compare that to the 1050Ti that won't draw a single watt over the 75W rating.

I just put a 1050ti in an old Dell Studio XPS 8100 (i7 870, 2.93ghz) with a 350W PSU. The 570 wasn't even an option because I didnt want to stress the system that much (Irony - it came with a ATI Radeon HD 5770 which also needs a 450W PSU according to ATI which leads me to believe Dell was throttling it). Yes, I could have replaced the PSU too but if you have ever done that in a Dell, you know why I didnt.

Bottom line, while they are price competitive, the 1050ti is BY FAR the best price/FPS/Watt performer out there and if you are building a lower end system or upgrading a lower end system, it is a great GPU.

I've actually upgraded an HP office PC with an rx 580 8 gig and you're talking nonsense . Never went past 120 Watts Peak and average when gaming is ~105. I mean it's a more power hungry card than the 570 and I even over clocked it ffs.

If the card is gonna draw more than the 75w over PCI then it doesn't matter if its 80 or 150 watts imo. Electricity is laughably cheap and you'd need to use it for many years to even negate the price advantage of the 570 over the 1050 ti.
How much mindless brand loyalty can you have to disregard a 43% performance advantage at a lower price...
Worst thing is you might make a less informed person, that happens to read your comment make an uninformed and disadvantageous buying decision. Smh

You're the one talking nonsense now. Just because you can get away with putting an RX580 into a prebuilt with a questionable PSU because you aren't stressing the GPU very much doesn't mean everyone else should do the same. Most prebuilt computers don't even have the necessary 2x 6pin PCIe power connectors to power the RX580.

Every benchmark review of the RX580 variants I've seen has the card alone pull ~180-200w average in gaming (playing modern games). Techpowerup has the card alone maxing out at 210W in gaming and a furmark worst case scenario power draw of 250W-260W. Techspot's own review has a RX580's total system consumption at 344Watts when running games. So when you claim your RX580 is only pulling 120W max, then you clearly aren't running anything intensive.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1393-radeon-rx-580-vs-geforce-gtx-1060/
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/RX_580_Mech_2/29.html

Yes, the RX570 is better than the 1050Ti for anyone with a decent PSU and a regular computer, but folks who don't want to or don't know how to upgrade a garbage power supply, or for folks who want a low TDP & quiet HTPC, the 1050Ti would be the better option despite the worse power/price ratio.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

All good stuff but it ignores one very important factor - The 570 is a power hog that can peak at 200W+ in extreme situations and pulls 150W+ in normal gaming. Given the market is for lower cost gamers, the need for a beefy power supply - AMD recommends a 450W minimum - doesnt make sense. Compare that to the 1050Ti that won't draw a single watt over the 75W rating.
I just put a 1050ti in an old Dell Studio XPS 8100 (i7 870, 2.93ghz) with a 350W PSU. The 570 wasn't even an option because I didnt want to stress the system that much (Irony - it came with a ATI Radeon HD 5770 which also needs a 450W PSU according to ATI which leads me to believe Dell was throttling it). Yes, I could have replaced the PSU too but if you have ever done that in a Dell, you know why I didnt.
Bottom line, while they are price competitive, the 1050ti is BY FAR the best price/FPS/Watt performer out there and if you are building a lower end system or upgrading a lower end system, it is a great GPU.

Drop the core clock on the Rx 570 to 1050 mhz. Drop the voltage to 1v or 0.95v. Suddenly the Rx 570 is only drawing 90w and still beating the 1050 ti by a good 30%. Rx 570 is way more flexible. You can get the 570 down to 75-80w easy while still being noticeably faster than the 1050 ti, or overvolt it and oc' it to destroy the 1050 ti, for cheaper. It's the better card with a single exception - you have an absolutely trash OEM PC that is over 6 years old with no 6+2 pin PCIe connector, In which case, you're probably going to be limited by your i5 3470 at 1080p anyway.

Whether an OEM PC has a decent PSU with PCIe power pins has little to do with its age. I've had a nearly decade old Dell prebuilt PC with a Nehalem gen1 i7 come with a good 500Watt PSU with 2x PCIe power pins made by Delta Electonics. I've also had newer 4 year old and 2-3 year old HP/Dell prebuilts that came with i7 Haswells and i7 Skylakes respectively that only had 250-300W PSUs with no PCIe power pins.

For folks trying to just stick a decent GPU into a prebuilt without PCIe power pins, the 1050Ti is fine. For folks who want a quiet (eg. zero fan speed), low TDP GPU for an HTPC and don't want to spend the time (because time is money) to tinker with undervolting and underclocking to "possibly" reduce the RX570 power consumption by 50%, then the 1050Ti is fine. For everyone else and in most situations, the RX570 is superior. The RX570 is for 90% of people out there and the 1050Ti is for the other 10% in those niche situations.

 

[Evernessince]

All good stuff but it ignores one very important factor - The 570 is a power hog that can peak at 200W+ in extreme situations and pulls 150W+ in normal gaming. Given the market is for lower cost gamers, the need for a beefy power supply - AMD recommends a 450W minimum - doesnt make sense. Compare that to the 1050Ti that won't draw a single watt over the 75W rating.
I just put a 1050ti in an old Dell Studio XPS 8100 (i7 870, 2.93ghz) with a 350W PSU. The 570 wasn't even an option because I didnt want to stress the system that much (Irony - it came with a ATI Radeon HD 5770 which also needs a 450W PSU according to ATI which leads me to believe Dell was throttling it). Yes, I could have replaced the PSU too but if you have ever done that in a Dell, you know why I didnt.
Bottom line, while they are price competitive, the 1050ti is BY FAR the best price/FPS/Watt performer out there and if you are building a lower end system or upgrading a lower end system, it is a great GPU.

Drop the core clock on the Rx 570 to 1050 mhz. Drop the voltage to 1v or 0.95v. Suddenly the Rx 570 is only drawing 90w and still beating the 1050 ti by a good 30%. Rx 570 is way more flexible. You can get the 570 down to 75-80w easy while still being noticeably faster than the 1050 ti, or overvolt it and oc' it to destroy the 1050 ti, for cheaper. It's the better card with a single exception - you have an absolutely trash OEM PC that is over 6 years old with no 6+2 pin PCIe connector, In which case, you're probably going to be limited by your i5 3470 at 1080p anyway.

Whether an OEM PC has a decent PSU with PCIe power pins has little to do with its age. I've had a nearly decade old Dell prebuilt PC with a Nehalem gen1 i7 come with a good 500Watt PSU with 2x PCIe power pins made by Delta Electonics. I've also had newer 4 year old and 2-3 year old HP/Dell prebuilts that came with i7 Haswells and i7 Skylakes respectively that only had 250-300W PSUs with no PCIe power pins.

For folks trying to just stick a decent GPU into a prebuilt without PCIe power pins, the 1050Ti is fine. For folks who want a quiet (eg. zero fan speed), low TDP GPU for an HTPC and don't want to spend the time (because time is money) to tinker with undervolting and underclocking to "possibly" reduce the RX570 power consumption by 50%, then the 1050Ti is fine. For everyone else and in most situations, the RX570 is superior. The RX570 is for 90% of people out there and the 1050Ti is for the other 10% in those niche situations.

In that case though wouldn't an RX 560 be a better choice? At around $100 USD and with many models not requiring external power it's only a bit slower then the 1050 ti at quite a bit lower price.

AMD also has Radeon chill as well, so you can drop power consumption even lower.

Heck you can take that $50 extra and invest it into a better power supply as not even having a 300w PSU is extremely restricting.

 

[Lew Zealand]

I love low power computing but if you're building on a cheap budget, the RX570 is the best option. Yeah if you've got an OEM PC and are limited to the 75W PCIe slot only, then the 1050Ti is your best bet but I wonder how well a 75W-restricted R570 4GB would do. Maybe AMD will make a Navi part with those specs.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

In that case though wouldn't an RX 560 be a better choice? At around $100 USD and with many models not requiring external power it's only a bit slower then the 1050 ti at quite a bit lower price.
AMD also has Radeon chill as well, so you can drop power consumption even lower.
Heck you can take that $50 extra and invest it into a better power supply as not even having a 300w PSU is extremely restricting.

I'm seeing a 44% difference between the RX560 and a 1050Ti according to Techpowerup's chart (the 1050TI is about 44% more powerful than the RX560). Though I think this may be including both the watered down RX560 and the original RX560? The settings in TPU's reviews are usually set to near max.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-560.c2940
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-gtx-1050-ti.c2885

Though in this TPU review (max/near max settings?), the 1050Ti is about 37% faster than an RX460 on average.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1050_Ti_Gaming_X/27.html

In the Techspot review, the RX560 is more on the level of the 1050 regular (about 20-25% slower than the 1050Ti in some games) but comes close to the 1050Ti in some games when the settings are set to medium/normal/etc:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1430-radeon-rx-560-vs-geforce-gtx-1050/

So it seems the benchmarks are all over the place depending on the games and settings, but you're looking at what is probably a 25-30% speed difference between the two on average.

So if the person wanted something that can run a few games at lowered settings or resolution, then the RX460 would be fine. But if the person wanted more power to run games at higher settings or higher resolution, or wanted the best card on the market that didn't need a PCIe power cable, then the 1050Ti is still the way to go.

As for the $50 - sometimes it is not about the money. It's sometimes about the compatibility (some OEM cases can't fit standard ATX PSUs or don't have the right screw-holes), skills (a lot of folks don't know how or aren't comfortable with replacing the PSU), and time (some don't want to spend the time to do this and just swapping the GPU is much faster).

 

[Bluescreendeath]

I love low power computing but if you're building on a cheap budget, the RX570 is the best option. Yeah if you've got an OEM PC and are limited to the 75W PCIe slot only, then the 1050Ti is your best bet but I wonder how well a 75W-restricted R570 4GB would do. Maybe AMD will make a Navi part with those specs.

If you mean with the current architecture, then it probably wont be as efficent in terms of power consumption/performance as the 1050Ti and would end up somewhere like the RX460/original RX560 which performs roughly equal to the 1050. The AMD architecture for the RX400/RX500 seems to be less efficient than Pascal in terms of power/performance if you match up the performance without taking into account price. eg. RX480 (150+W-180W) or RX580 (180W) vs GTX1060 6GB (120W), or vs the superior 1070 (150W), or RX460 (75-90W) vs 1050 (60W).

 

[Nightfire]

This is kind of a bogus comparison. While the 580 are matched with the 1060, the gap between 1050 and 1060 is much greater than 580 to 570. Honestly, the 570 is really comparable to the 3gb 1060 given the reduced computing ability of each. I will say that when mining was at it's worst, I upgraded a friend's system with a 1050ti instead of AMD just because of the huge price difference at the time, plus the lower power/heat since he had a poorly ventilated mid tower and low grade motherboard.

I tend to ramble. Long story short, others have said that the 1050 is less power hungry, and this is important if you have limited budget for a better PSU, but if you're building new and have a well ventilated case, you would be better off with the AMD card.

Long story even longer, 1050ti is not in the same performance class as the 570, or even the 470. They're for different consumers.

That was a whole lot if rambling for nothing. As stated several times in the comments and article, the point is to compare similar priced cards TODAY.

The 1050ti got skunked at its price point. Perhaps when mining was popular, it did not. But that was then.

The only chance Nvidia might have at this price point is if they release a GTX 1050ti with GDDR5x to make up for some of the bandwidth deficiency.

 

[NVDVR]

I think the wider 256 bit bus is paying off for the rx 470 vs the 128 bit on the 1050ti. This is part of the reason that the 7970 held up well against the GTX 680.

AMD has been pretty good about giving their GPUs a wider bandwidth. This usually has a bigger effect on performance over its age than frame buffer size.

Case in point: The FuryX has held up very well against the GTX 980ti due to the high bandwidth despite the 4 GB of frame buffer that so many critisized.

While it is true that the GTX 680's GK104 is a data-starved GPU, one should not compare different GPU architectures solely on their memory bandwidth, let alone from different manufacturers. Apart from Turing, NVIDIA's recent architectures (Maxwell and Pascal) are much less bandwidth-dependant than Kepler and Fermi, mainly thanks to the Tiled-Cached rasterization process (and the huge L2 cache, which is a consequence of TCR). A good example for this statement is the GTX 1060 (~192 GB/s, 1.5MB L2 cache), which does not scale that much (if not at all?) when paired with higher frequency GDDR5 and even GDDR5X DRAM.