The Best $100 GPU: Radeon RX 560 vs. GeForce GTX 1050

[ET3D]

That's on my to-do list for next week, just gotta hunt one down locally.

I guess that didn't pan out.

 

[Steve]

I guess that didn't pan out.

I got one, my do-to list is the issue mate.

 

[ET3D]

I got one, my do-to list is the issue mate.

Good to hear. Yeah, I'm sure you have a lot of more interesting stuff to review.

 

[theskyguy]

Anyone could compare these two in Adobe Premiere rendering?

Thank you!

 

[ddferrari]

I guess that didn't pan out.

There are plenty of 1030 reviews out there- why don't you just read those? I found several with a simple Google search by typing 'GTX 1030 review'. That will be easier and faster than making continued requests to Steve, who is a busy guy and can't always cater to personal requests.

 

[ET3D]

There are plenty of 1030 reviews out there- why don't you just read those? I found several with a simple Google search by typing 'GTX 1030 review'. That will be easier and faster than making continued requests to Steve, who is a busy guy and can't always cater to personal requests.

Nice of you to stand up for Steve, but I don't think he needs that. I happen to like Steve's reviews, and I think that he could have an interesting take on that, especially if he includes a comparison to the RX 550. The reason I pinged him is that he said he's going to pick a card up and review it, but nothing happened. It's not like I'm stalking him or anything. All those cameras installed around his home are just for bird watching, you know. Still, I think it's cute that you come to his defence, even if I think it's misguided.

IIRC there are like 3 reviews of the 1030 (not including YouTube ones), and I did read them. And it's 'GT 1030', by the way. But luckily Google is good at fixing wrong search terms.

 

[ddferrari]

Nice of you to stand up for Steve, but I don't think he needs that. I happen to like Steve's reviews, and I think that he could have an interesting take on that, especially if he includes a comparison to the RX 550. The reason I pinged him is that he said he's going to pick a card up and review it, but nothing happened. It's not like I'm stalking him or anything. All those cameras installed around his home are just for bird watching, you know. Still, I think it's cute that you come to his defence, even if I think it's misguided.

IIRC there are like 3 reviews of the 1030 (not including YouTube ones), and I did read them. And it's 'GT 1030', by the way. But luckily Google is good at fixing wrong search terms.

I'm so happy you think it's cute! Maybe there are only three reviews for a reason- no one cares.

I think it's cute that ET3D -apparently an eight-year-old boy with a paper route- needs Steve to help him decide if he should put his $65 life savings into a 1030, because "Golly mister, that's a whole lot of money"!

NEXT UP: Steve puts the new $3.99 Rosewill High Speed HDMI Cable to the test

 

[ET3D]

Maybe there are only three reviews for a reason- no one cares.

Well, they should. The low end market sells more than the high end market, and although a lot of these buyers don't frequent tech sites, a lot of the people who advise them on what to buy do. It's a good idea for such people to have an idea of how the 1030 compares to the RX 550, for example.

Not to mention that it's technically interesting. Some of us like tech not just because we care about buying the latest and greatest, but because we're interested in the field. The 1030 is the only Pascal card with a 64 bit memory bus, having very low power use makes it interesting, and its performance is also somewhat indicative of the equivalent entry level laptop chip, the MX 150. Comparison with an undervolted/underclocked RX 550 or RX 560 would also be of technical interest.

So sure, some people may not be interested in this, but I still think it belongs on a tech site, and would love more low level coverage in general, because, as mentioned, it's a large market and under-reviewed.

An by the way, I won't mind reading a good comparison of HDMI cables, including low end ones, but I don't think that's really up Steve's alley, or really suitable for TechSpot.

 

[NightAntilli]

I own a 1050, but can't help but felt the way this article being written is biased against the Amd.

Yes, we hate AMD at TechSpot, that's what that feeling is...

You have to understand... The market has changed and one has to look at more than just performance numbers. Does that 5% difference in performance in many games really matter compared to the benefits of FreeSync?

The recommendation should be;
Have FreeSync monitor? Go RX 560
Don't have FreeSync monitor? Go GTX 1050.

Instead, your tone is fully towards the 1050 being clearly the superior choice without much doubt, and the FreeSync comment gives a 'possible but meh' impression.

I don't think you hate AMD, and I doubt it was your intention, but he is right... It was ultimately written in a biased way against AMD.
If we are going to make recommendations for people to buy certain products in the real world, certain influences of the market should not be ignored. If the nVidia card had ShadowPlay and ReLive didn't exist for example, it more likely than not would have been mentioned as an additional advantage for the nVidia card. Someone with a lower end card like these will likely benefit a lot more from FreeSync than someone with a high end card that can keep above 60 FPS at all times anyway. Smoothness is ultimately a lot more important than framerates for many people on a budget.

Especially in these times where nVidia is overpricing everything, don't do them any favors. I'm not saying to do favors to AMD, but don't undermine a key influencing factor like in this article.

With this conclusion: "In my opinion, the only real advantage the RX 560 has is FreeSync support, if you can take advantage of that, then it might make sense at the same price as the 1050."

I have to ask; have you tried playing games in this low end with, and without, adaptive sync? Because in my opinion. This here, is where the real advantages of a monitor with adaptive sync really shows. And it is MASSIVE when you want to be rid of tearing, stutter and input lag at these low frame rates..

Your conclusion should really be: "The only reason to go for a GTX1050, is if you don't have, or don't plan to buy a Freesync monitor".

In my country you get a 75Hz Freesync gaming monitor for ~150USD. Whilst the cheapest G-Sync monitor is the 144Hz AOC2460PG at ~370USD. But those 144Hz will be wasted on these cards. And you'll get the same performance sub 75fps (Which most of these games vil be at with these cards) with a monitor at much less than half the price.

Now; good job testing all these cards, and in a more "realistic" setting with an R5 1400 to boot. Thumbs up! Sorry to see you stumble over the finish line like this though.

Obviously yes I have used FreeSync on low-end GPUs like the RX 560, I get what you are saying which is why I mentioned the advantage of having FreeSync in the conclusion. That said not everyone wants to use FreeSync, many complain that it messes with the input, creating a laggy sensation. FreeSync doesn't get right of input lag as you suggest.

That's nice and all, but if people are worried about input lag they likely will not be getting an RX 560 or GTX 1050, because they'll want to push as many frames as possible. They will be running CS:GO at 300+ fps, not the majority of the games tested here on low end cards. FreeSync is indeed useless for them, but to the majority of low budget people that simply wants a smooth experience, FreeSync is a viable point.

Multiple people are giving some constructive criticism here, but it seems you're not that fond of it... With replies like these you're only making things worse... Show people all the cards. Don't tell them hearts is better than spades just because. Tell them if you like red choose hearts and if you like black choose spades.

 

[Steve]

You have to understand... The market has changed and one has to look at more than just performance numbers. Does that 5% difference in performance in many games really matter compared to the benefits of FreeSync?

The recommendation should be;
Have FreeSync monitor? Go RX 560
Don't have FreeSync monitor? Go GTX 1050.

Instead, your tone is fully towards the 1050 being clearly the superior choice without much doubt, and the FreeSync comment gives a 'possible but meh' impression.

I don't think you hate AMD, and I doubt it was your intention, but he is right... It was ultimately written in a biased way against AMD.
If we are going to make recommendations for people to buy certain products in the real world, certain influences of the market should not be ignored. If the nVidia card had ShadowPlay and ReLive didn't exist for example, it more likely than not would have been mentioned as an additional advantage for the nVidia card. Someone with a lower end card like these will likely benefit a lot more from FreeSync than someone with a high end card that can keep above 60 FPS at all times anyway. Smoothness is ultimately a lot more important than framerates for many people on a budget.

Especially in these times where nVidia is overpricing everything, don't do them any favors. I'm not saying to do favors to AMD, but don't undermine a key influencing factor like in this article.


That's nice and all, but if people are worried about input lag they likely will not be getting an RX 560 or GTX 1050, because they'll want to push as many frames as possible. They will be running CS:GO at 300+ fps, not the majority of the games tested here on low end cards. FreeSync is indeed useless for them, but to the majority of low budget people that simply wants a smooth experience, FreeSync is a viable point.

Multiple people are giving some constructive criticism here, but it seems you're not that fond of it... With replies like these you're only making things worse... Show people all the cards. Don't tell them hearts is better than spades just because. Tell them if you like red choose hearts and if you like black choose spades.

I showed the facts and then gave my opinion. You're now trying to force an opinion on me that I don't fully agree with. See how that works both ways?

 

[NightAntilli]

I showed the facts and then gave my opinion. You're now trying to force an opinion on me that I don't fully agree with. See how that works both ways?

Wow... Seriously...?
You say you showed the facts, but you didn't show ALL the facts. You showed the fact that the GTX 1050 is generally faster, and kept hammering on it, while trying to sweep the value of FreeSync under the rug. If you want to look at performance only while dismissing all additional features of a graphics card, do so in advance in a disclaimer or whatever. That way, everyone is aware what you are measuring and what you are ignoring.

I'm not here to tell you how to run your show. But any reporter of a review tech site that has some integrity will not overplay and downplay things based on their personal preferences (aka "opinions"), but remain as objective as possible and be as open as possible about presenting all options. And they definitely don't give patronizing responses to their audience... The fact that multiple people called it out, and you still have the same attitude says it all.

On a side note, I do like your work... And everyone can make mistakes or give impressions they didn't mean to. But when criticized, it would be nice to see a tone that isn't cynical for once.

We're done here.

 

[Negative 287]

The problem with Doom is that AMD cards tend to run so much better with Vulkan, if you compare them to the Nvidia equivalent. It’s not so much an outlier, in that you would see these results repeated in other games using the API... However, this API is barely used anywhere at the moment!

 

[dsilvermane]

I'm seriously considering the RX560 2GB for primarily 3 reasons:

1. I'm an unashamed AMD fan boy. Just got a Ryzen 5 1600 and 16GB DDR4 (replaced a Core2Quad) and I need something to complement that better than my GTX460 currently does...

2. I game at 1600x900, which takes quite a bit less frame buffer and processing power than 1080, so I don't need 4GB VRAM. I don't however own a Freesync display, so that doesn't weigh in for me. Mine is stuck at 60Hz.

3. This, however is the big clincher to me: here in South Africa, a 2GB RX560 can be had for up to R300 cheaper than a 1050. That's over $20, so don't tell me you wouldn't consider it with performance this close.

Final thought, none of the 'older' titles were really more 'playable' on the 1050 than on the RX560 (perhaps with one or two exceptions) and indeed, DX12 and Vulkan sees the 1050 more often than not take a sound beating from the AMD. For me, to buy a graphics card now I most definitely will be taking the newer API's into consideration, as I generally take a while before I upgrade (I'm playing GTA5 on a GTX460 for crying out loud). Not to mention most 2016 titles will run well on either card. So, all AMD bias aside, I really feel the RX560 is actually the better option here.

 

[PetrolHead]

Not to mention that it's technically interesting. Some of us like tech not just because we care about buying the latest and greatest, but because we're interested in the field. The 1030 is the only Pascal card with a 64 bit memory bus, having very low power use makes it interesting, and its performance is also somewhat indicative of the equivalent entry level laptop chip, the MX 150. Comparison with an undervolted/underclocked RX 550 or RX 560 would also be of technical interest.

Agreed. Even though I just got an RX 550 (largely out of curiosity), I wouldn't mind reading more reviews and comparisons. Steve already did the eSports Benchmark, where the GT 1030 and RX 550 went head-to-head, but even more benchmark results would be nice and for these cards the HTPC angle would also be worth covering. Both cards are roughly equal to a GTX 660 when it comes to performance, but there are significant differences in GPU architecture between all three. Some sort of in-depth analysis on the pros and cons of AMDs and NVIDIAs approaches in different use cases would likely be an interesting read as well.

 

[anubis44]

The real issue for me is that the RX 560, and indeed Radeons in general are MUCH faster in the newest game engines, like Doom and Bethesda's Wolfenstein II. So this is a question of what plays games great right now, but is already blowing past comparably priced nVidia cards (or even more expensive nVidia cards) in the newest game engines, which will be the basis of more and more games going forward. On this count, AMD wins hands down. nVidia is the king of single-threaded DX11 and older game engines, but AMD's Radeon arch is the future of gaming. Games will only be more and more optimized for Radeon because they are the default GPU in the game consoles.

 

[ET3D]

The real issue for me is that the RX 560, and indeed Radeons in general are MUCH faster in the newest game engines, like Doom and Bethesda's Wolfenstein II.

If you narrow your samples enough, you can prove anything. Yes, the RX 560 is faster in Bethesda games, and if these are the games you're playing then it's a good choice. But if you look at other AAA games, that's not usually the case. Far as I could see, the RX 560 loses to the 1050 in most 2017 games. In the long run, it might be better (or might not), but it doesn't make any sense to buy a card now so that in a few years it plays games better, especially not a low end card.

Of course, that's all academic. It's impossible to find an RX 560 now, and it's still possible to find a 1050 2GB, last I checked, so that's pretty much the only choice for gamers.

 

[msroadkill612]

[Thank you very much for documenting your experience and wisdom. very helpful.