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

[Nightfire]

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.

This is the only gddr5x review I could find:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/KFA2/GTX_1060_6_GB_GDDR5X/34.html

The GDDR5X 1060 had the worst gpu overclock but still managed a 15% boost in performance due to the massive memory overclock. Others did not see any gains with the 9 GB/s gddr5, but it looks like some of the newer titles are memory starved with the 192 bit bus.

 

[Puiu]

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

You don't need a "good" PSU for it. You are fine with a 450W PSU.

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.

Where are you getting your numbers dude? O_o You are BY FAR daydreaming.

 

[Evernessince]

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).

I guess anyway you look at it there is going to be trade-offs when trying to install a graphics card into an OEM system with a very low end power supply.

 

[Carrandas]

Surely the advice should be to wait a bit for the 2050 to launch.

 

[money]

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.

I recently upgraded from Geforce 960 to AMD 580 and I can confirm that my card draws max 120 watts in modern games on Very High and Ultra settings at 1080p, most of the time it is ~100+/-10 watts.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Surely the advice should be to wait a bit for the 2050 to launch.

Or, perhaps, the launch of the GTX 1150 and 1160.

 

[ZackL04]

Isnt this kinda old news Steve? I feel like you did these same tests in a launch article for the two cards already...

 

[Imran Mikayle]

Are we going to see a trend where cards like these will be on the market for 3 to 4+ years before a new series will come out?

 

[QuantumPhysics]

If you're shopping for PC gaming hardware and all you can front for a video card is $150... I'd say you should save up and come back when you have way more.

Why would I be buying a bottom of the barrel card when new games demand more?

Comparing cards based on price is ludicrous to me.

 

[Nightfire]

If you're shopping for PC gaming hardware and all you can front for a video card is $150... I'd say you should save up and come back when you have way more.

Why would I be buying a bottom of the barrel card when new games demand more?

Comparing cards based on price is ludicrous to me.

Could you clarify? The Rx570 shows great 1080p performance in the newest titles and good 1440p performance in less demanding titles.

So why would somebody wait if they want to play PC titles now?

 

[QuantumPhysics]

Could you clarify? The Rx570 shows great 1080p performance in the newest titles and good 1440p performance in less demanding titles.

So why would somebody wait if they want to play PC titles now?

1080p?

What's that?

 

[GreenNova343]

Could you clarify? The Rx570 shows great 1080p performance in the newest titles and good 1440p performance in less demanding titles.

So why would somebody wait if they want to play PC titles now?

1080p?

What's that?

The resolution that the vast majority of gamers play at, & therefore where the majority of any money to be made from GPUs is going to come for both nVidia & AMD.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Could you clarify? The Rx570 shows great 1080p performance in the newest titles and good 1440p performance in less demanding titles.

So why would somebody wait if they want to play PC titles now?

1080p?

What's that?

Ha. So clever.

Steam Primary Display Resolution December 2018: 1920 x 1080, 60.72% of users.

This article and the cards reviewed target the majority of gamers out there.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Are we going to see a trend where cards like these will be on the market for 3 to 4+ years before a new series will come out?

I would not be surprised at a trend to buy used the immediate last generation card for half the price of the current generation. There are only a few 'big' advances left...and many folks will be happy to play at last year's state of the art level.

 

[Gus Fring]

If you're shopping for PC gaming hardware and all you can front for a video card is $150... I'd say you should save up and come back when you have way more.

Why would I be buying a bottom of the barrel card when new games demand more?

Comparing cards based on price is ludicrous to me.

I know , buying anything less than a swarovski encrusted twin gpu 2280 is simply baffling , darling

 

[Nobina]

If you're shopping for PC gaming hardware and all you can front for a video card is $150... I'd say you should save up and come back when you have way more.

Why would I be buying a bottom of the barrel card when new games demand more?

Comparing cards based on price is ludicrous to me.

I know , buying anything less than a swarovski encrusted twin gpu 2280 is simply baffling , darling

That guy is either baiting or he's mentally ill.

 

[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.

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.

There is a big difference between "uses more power" and "You will need a 450W PSU and a free power connector". Again, for the average builder, its not a big deal but both these cards are targeting the lower end and that is where you are most likely to encounter lower powered PSUs.

 

[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.

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.

Not replacing the PSU was not a $$ decision, it was because Dell likes to do funky things with power to keep you from being able to easily upgrade. As I said, if you have ever replaced a Dell PSU, you know why I didnt.

 

[Evernessince]

There is a big difference between "uses more power" and "You will need a 450W PSU and a free power connector". Again, for the average builder, its not a big deal but both these cards are targeting the lower end and that is where you are most likely to encounter lower powered PSUs.

As many other users have pointed out though, it doesn't require a 450W power supply. If you don't even have a single PCIe cable on your power supply, there are always dual molex to PCIe adapters. In fact many AMD brands will include a dual molex to six pin adapter in the box. I've got a whole pile of them. You are talking about a 44% performance difference, that's huge.

Not replacing the PSU was not a $$ decision, it was because Dell likes to do funky things with power to keep you from being able to easily upgrade. As I said, if you have ever replaced a Dell PSU, you know why I didnt.

Seems like a reason to not buy dell especially when companies like iBuyPower offer a 3 year warranty and use off the shelf parts all at pricing similar to dell's.

More of less the thinking is: If the person knows nothing about computers and they purchased the worst system with proprietary PSU connectors and non standard case they should also continue to overspend on a vastly weaker GPU. You expect that same uneducated individual to install a graphics card. In any case they are going to have to learn how to do something with computers, why wouldn't any PC expert online try to help them get out of the hole they are in instead of digging them in deeper?

Given that we are talking about the cheaper OEM systems, The CPU will likely be eating 65w or less. Then you add in the RAM at 2w a stick (2 sticks), 2 1w fans, a 26w motherboard, and a 5w SSD. That's 102w total, leaving 198w for the GPU. More then enough power on even the lowest end power supply. PSU doesn't have a PCIe connector? dual molex to PCIe adapters are dirt cheap and often come free with new graphics cards.

That's not an ideal solution but given the constraints it will most certainly give you the most performance and is equally as easy as installing a 1050 ti.

 

[ddferrari]

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.

They sell for roughly the same price. There's nothing bogus about this review at all.

 

[ddferrari]

Surely the advice should be to wait a bit for the 2050 to launch.

Do you think the 2050 is going to be anywhere near $150, when the 2060 is $350? Not bloody likely.

 

[ddferrari]

I would not be surprised at a trend to buy used the immediate last generation card for half the price of the current generation. There are only a few 'big' advances left...and many folks will be happy to play at last year's state of the art level.

The last gen cards are nowhere near as low as half the price of the current ones. In fact, the 1080ti costs almost as much as 2080ti at this point.

 

[Dimitrios]

Wow I can't stop laughing with the Nvidia owners splitting hairs on power consumption. The RX560-RX570-RX580 are very good cards for the money. AMD's Wattman is very good on tuning your card for overclocking or under volt your card. What shocks me is just spending a min to fiddle with the RX560-RX570 you can get some real nice boost in gaming. I don't have a RX 580 to mess around with yet but AMD did a good job with the their low and mid cards for the money. My RX560 fans only kick in when gaming but it runs cool and quiet.

 

[Nightfire]

Do you think the 2050 is going to be anywhere near $150, when the 2060 is $350? Not bloody likely.

The 2050 will be 2 tiers below the 2060, so maybe. With GDDR6, they could get away with an ultra cheap 96 bit bus using 3 GB and it would still be cheaper and faster (in most games) than the 1050ti.

The 2050ti will most likely be in the $200-250 category running 128 bit gddr6 with 4gb and hopefully 8 GB versions.

 

[Kerodon]

Good post objectively, but the $580 is also at the $150 price point.