# Gigabyte GTX 1050 Ti G1 Gaming 4 GB



## W1zzard (Nov 8, 2016)

Gigabyte's GTX 1050 Ti G1 Gaming is a highly overclocked custom design variant by the company, featuring a dual-fan cooler that provides excellent temperatures and incredibly low noise levels at the same time. During desktop work and media playback, the fans even stop completely.

*Show full review*


----------



## dj-electric (Nov 8, 2016)

RX 470's heavy shadow makes this a bad deal, that simple this time.
30$ extra over reference MSRP for basically 0 actual gains is unfair


----------



## etayorius (Nov 8, 2016)

Why there was no RX480 Individual Game Benchmark in last two Reviews? GTX1060 of both variants are there.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 8, 2016)

etayorius said:


> Why there was no RX480 Individual Game Benchmark in last two Reviews? GTX1060 of both variants are there.


Because RX 470 is included and sufficient to compare. No such comparison exists for GTX 1060


----------



## Folterknecht (Nov 8, 2016)

GB pricing themselfs out of the market - good job, achievement unlocked


----------



## sutyi (Nov 8, 2016)

Folterknecht said:


> GB pricing themselfs out of the market - good job, achievement unlocked



Pretty much true for all AIB 1050Ti models regardless for brand. For about 7% more money I can get 30-40% more performance. Or if you opt for a reference board RX 470, you nullify the price difference.

Here in puny Hungary we have prices like this:

Decenter GTX 1050Ti OC AIB boards start around 60k HUF _/NMC*: 196EUR - 216USD/_
XFX RX 470 4GB RS ~ 64k HUF _/NMC*: 209EUR - 231USD/_

_*Not Monopoly Currency

_


----------



## Darksword (Nov 8, 2016)

*$170.00?!*


----------



## catulitechup (Nov 8, 2016)

Good review however can add review about zotac GTX 1050 2GB non ti

Because in existent reviews dont have enough information about this card in how much consume in different modes: idle - multimonitor - bluray - typical gaming - peak gaming - maximum

Without forget temperatures, noise and others thinking about htpc


----------



## illli (Nov 9, 2016)

again, I don't understand the reasoning behind testing games with these lower-end cards at 3840x2160  resolutions.  Nobody in their right mind would ever consider games at that resolution with these cards. It would seem to make more sense to test at lower resolutions, like was done with the 960 reviews


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 9, 2016)

illli said:


> again, I don't understand the reasoning behind testing games with these lower-end cards at 3840x2160  resolutions.  Nobody in their right mind would ever consider games at that resolution with these cards. It would seem to make more sense to test at lower resolutions, like was done with the 960 reviews


This testing is primarily to generate the relative performance numbers for all cards at all resolutions.

1600x900 was dropped by overwhelming user request, in return you're getting more game tests now


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 9, 2016)

illli said:


> again, I don't understand the reasoning behind testing games with these lower-end cards at 3840x2160  resolutions.  Nobody in their right mind would ever consider games at that resolution with these cards. It would seem to make more sense to test at lower resolutions, like was done with the 960 reviews



Agreed. But with hdmi2.0, low power and full hw hevc/vp9 decoder it's a perfect card for uhd tellies. So in my mind it's fine to benchmark at those resolutions, but not that high in game settings.


----------



## MoupitShow (Nov 9, 2016)




----------



## illli (Nov 9, 2016)

jabbadap said:


> Agreed. But with hdmi2.0, low power and full hw hevc/vp9 decoder it's a perfect card for uhd tellies. So in my mind it's fine to benchmark at those resolutions, but not that high in game settings.



that brings up an interesting point, but not sure how game benchmarks could help someone in determining if this was a good card compared to the competition in the price bracket for those uses.  Admittedly I don't know much about hvec etc, so not sure what benchmarks would be useful. 



W1zzard said:


> This testing is primarily to generate the relative performance numbers for all cards at all resolutions.
> 1600x900 was dropped by overwhelming user request, in return you're getting more game tests now



Oh, I didn't know people voted to discontinue the 1600x900 tests.  It makes sense now.


----------



## catulitechup (Nov 9, 2016)

MoupitShow said:


>



This is strange, compared with MSI GTX 1050 power consumption testing occur similar thing

For this reason stay interested in zotac gtx 1050 non ti power consumption test because zotac gtx 1050 non ti (stock frecuency) must be have lower consumption


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 9, 2016)

It seems AIBs are deliberately trying to sink the GTX 1050/Ti with stupid pricing. I guess the margins on AMD cards must be higher.


----------



## sith'ari (Nov 9, 2016)

MoupitShow said:


>



I suppose that this happened because the Max power consumption is being tested with Furmark while the PeakGaming power consumption is being tested with Metro:LastLight.
While obviously a paradox (*max power consumption < peak gaming consumption) it's related to the testing methodology.


----------



## Caring1 (Nov 9, 2016)

sith'ari said:


> While obviously a paradox (*max power consumption < peak gaming consumption) it's related to the testing methodology.


Not necessarily a paradox as more confusion on readers behalf about their actual meaning.
Peak reading is the highest spike, not maximum continual consumption.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 9, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Not necessarily a paradox as more confusion on readers behalf about their actual meaning.
> Peak reading is the highest spike, not maximum continual consumption.


Any thoughts on renaming the chart to make it more obvious?


----------



## Caring1 (Nov 9, 2016)

Not from me personally, I'm happy with the current naming convention.


----------



## bug (Nov 9, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> Any thoughts on renaming the chart to make it more obvious?


"Maximum instant power draw" and "maximum sustained power draw" look like obvious choices.

More OT, this is yet more proof these cards are actually aimed at the clueless. It's one thing to charge an extra $30 for an 1070 or even an 1060, but for these cards, that's an over 20% premium. And as others have said, it's also 470 territory.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 9, 2016)

bug said:


> "Maximum instant power draw" and "maximum sustained power draw" look like obvious choices.


average is measured in gaming, peak is measured in gaming, maximum is measured in furmark

using your naming would suggest they both use the same test?


----------



## sith'ari (Nov 9, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> Any thoughts on renaming the chart to make it more obvious?



I don't think it's a "name" issue. 
What we witnessed by this review is that perhaps Furmark is unsuitable (*in some cases such as this one) for testing the max power draw.


----------



## renz496 (Nov 9, 2016)

the pricing is no doubt silly but board partner know they can sell nvidia cards at higher price and still sell lots of them. also they most likely harping the same thing as what they did with 750ti before; charging more because it's power efficiency. btw Wiz in the power consumption section why there is no power consumption for RX460 being mentioned?


----------



## bug (Nov 9, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> average is measured in gaming, peak is measured in gaming, maximum is measured in furmark
> 
> using your naming would suggest they both use the same test?


"Average (gaming)", "Maximum instant (gaming)" and "Maximum sustained (Furmark)". Alternatively, add captions/footnotes.
Seriously, I only look at idle and average power draw on this site, precisely because I can't be bothered to remember what the others mean.

Or you could just drop the "peak" graphs completely, they're irrelevant anyway.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 9, 2016)

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_1050_Ti_G1_Gaming/27.html

Chart titles have been updated. Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## bug (Nov 9, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_1050_Ti_G1_Gaming/27.html
> 
> Chart titles have been updated. Thanks for the feedback!


Thanks for listening


----------



## kilis (Nov 9, 2016)

Thanks for the review.

What i understood (beacuse it was not mentioned in the review), front face plate is not removable for easy cleaning and fans are not replaceable.
If its true ,its very bad.Because these were the two most annoying problems i ve had with my last two graphic card.
manufacturers should not forgot putting these user friendly features in to their products.


----------



## wrathchild_67 (Nov 9, 2016)

Could we please get a review of a 1050 TI without a power connector? I have not seen any reviews showing the overclocking capabilities of the cards without a power connector.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Nov 9, 2016)

Do people actually buy these


----------



## wrathchild_67 (Nov 9, 2016)

Durvelle27 said:


> Do people actually buy these



Yeah, they do. But probably not for $170. I have a strict 90w limit on the GPU for my HTPC due to using a PicoPSU 160XT. I currently have a Geforce 950 (no power connector) in it based on the review I read here. My 950 overclocks the same as the review, so I'm getting close to Geforce 960 level performance out of a 75w card. Now, I'm looking to put the 950 in my daughter's PC and get a 1050 TI for HTPC.


----------



## jabbadap (Nov 9, 2016)

wrathchild_67 said:


> Yeah, they do. But probably not for $170. I have a strict 90w limit on the GPU for my HTPC due to using a PicoPSU 160XT. I currently have a Geforce 950 (no power connector) in it based on the review I read here. My 950 overclocks the same as the review, so I'm getting close to Geforce 960 level performance out of a 75w card. Now, I'm looking to put the 950 in my daughter's PC and get a 1050 TI for HTPC.



Sounds like a decent upgrade if you are gaming on your htpc. Which reminds me is there any recent test for video decoders. Anandtech used to make great depth videodecoder reviews for htpc cards but they are lacking nowadays almost everything(Still waiting their *gtx960* review for crying out loud).


----------



## ppn (Nov 9, 2016)

Furmark did throttle the card to 55 watts, interesting.

Now if they only release the  double the GTX 1050 Ti in every way 1536 cuda /256 bit card already.


----------



## Assimilator (Nov 10, 2016)

Durvelle27 said:


> Do people actually buy these



Yup, I'm looking to get my brother a 1050 Ti without an external power connector to replace his ageing GTX 760. It'll be around a third faster while using less than half the power.


----------



## KLiKzg (Sep 8, 2020)

Durvelle27 said:


> Do people actually buy these


Unfortunately, bought one.. worked so far, for 3,5 years & then the fan broke.

Asked support from Gigabyte directly to change the cover from single to dual-fan...they responded in those "general copy/paste" kind of answer, never even answering any of my questions.

For me personally, it's *the last Gigabyte* I've ever bought...my personal opinion is that they "employ idiots" in support staff & don't care for customer satisfaction at all!


----------

