# MSI GTX 1050 Ti Gaming X 4 GB



## W1zzard (Oct 25, 2016)

MSI's GTX 1050 Ti Gaming X is an overclocked, custom-design variant of the GTX 1050 Ti. The board impresses with extremely low noise in gaming, and the fans stop completely in idle. Our test also revealed super low non-gaming power consumption and cool temperatures.

*Show full review*


----------



## aldo5 (Oct 25, 2016)

.....and the price for this is precise one RX 470.


----------



## jabbadap (Oct 25, 2016)

Started reading with wtf, equaling RX 470 in first couple of tests, but after that was averaged 25% slower which it should be(Although I would personally drop all under at least 20fps averaged as unplayable, that deus ex md uhd chart made me chuckle a bit). Too bad it has that 6-pin power connector and that overkill cooler, it makes one of the least interesting card in this class. Do you have some other brand's extra powerless single fan version on the row?

And great review as always


----------



## Estaric (Oct 25, 2016)

wow either amd did fantastic with the RX 470 or Nvidia really messed up the 1050 ti


----------



## Hiryougan (Oct 25, 2016)

Thanks! At this price point the card doesn't make any sense. We will see how that will turn out.

By the way, is there any point in benchmarking No Man's Sky? I don't think anyone even plays anymore that "game".


----------



## KainXS (Oct 25, 2016)

the 1050 would not look bad if it did not have that 6 pin and was shorter but the 1050ti is simply not worth it..


----------



## Hiryougan (Oct 25, 2016)

KainXS said:


> the 1050 would not look bad if it did not have that 6 pin and was shorter but the 1050ti is simply not worth it..


By the way i don't understand why 1050Ti even has the 6pin. The maximum Power Consumption is 71W.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 25, 2016)

Hiryougan said:


> By the way i don't understand why 1050Ti even has the 6pin. The maximum Power Consumption is 71W.


First of all "better OC" marketing speak. In theory with max power target you could go over 75W, but PCIe should be able to handle it nevertheless.

No other GTX 1050 reviews in the pipeline atm, but cards from other vendors are on its way, or soon.


----------



## Umes (Oct 25, 2016)

Estaric said:


> wow either amd did fantastic with the RX 470 or Nvidia really messed up the 1050 ti



No, MSI messed up with the pricing.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 25, 2016)

At that price and performance, everyone considering this should be getting the RX-470.

Thanks for a great review, as always!


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 25, 2016)

I would much rather get a 470 with 1080p freesync monitor than this overpriced crap from nvidia.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Oct 25, 2016)

i was expecting these results. the ti was never meant to compete with the 470 and i don't know why people got that idea in the first place.


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Oct 25, 2016)

MSI have gone absolutely mental with their prices this generation.

They used to be very reasonable up until the Maxwell era cards but are now seemingly pursuing Asus as the most 'needlessly, ridiculously overpriced' manufacturer.


----------



## ZeroFM (Oct 25, 2016)

rtwjunkie said:


> At that price and performance, everyone considering this should be getting the RX-470.
> 
> Thanks for a great review, as always!


msi 1050ti vs asus rx470 performance different 16% , https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1050_Ti_Gaming_X/30.html 57.8FPS + 16% = 67FPS
Now calculate price , 165$+16%= 191.4$ , asus rx470 cost 27% more


----------



## sergionography (Oct 25, 2016)

2 points id like to make.

1- this is an overclocked model and i wish there was a second set of test numbers with stock clocks. Just seems more fair that way to kinda get a feel on where amd and nvidia stand. With these having more that 10% oc it makes the rx470 25% faster rather than 35% which is pretty significant.

2- it now seems obvious that 14nm samsung doesnt scale for higher clockspeeds as well as TSMCs 16nm does. being that this oc model barely doing 1400mhz while stock cards on 16nm tsmc are easily doing 1600mhz. Thats bad news if AMD sticks to 14nm on vega, unless 14nm is more ironed out by then.


----------



## Hiryougan (Oct 25, 2016)

ZeroFM said:


> msi 1050ti vs asus rx470 performance different 16% , https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1050_Ti_Gaming_X/30.html 57.8FPS + 16% = 67FPS
> Now calculate price , 165$+16%= 191.4$ , asus rx470 cost 27% more


1. Asus has shit prices too.
2. It's one game mate, the 1050Ti just happends to be closer to 470 in it than on average.
Also 470 is way cheaper right now.


----------



## ZeroFM (Oct 25, 2016)

Hiryougan said:


> 1. Asus has shit prices too.
> 2. It's one game mate, the 1050Ti just happends to be closer to 470 in it than on average.
> Also 470 is way cheaper right now.


Check fc prices https://www.scan.co.uk/products/nda...-4gb-gddr5-graphics-card-768-core-1290mhz-gpu VS
https://www.scan.co.uk/products/4gb...pcie-30-6600mhz-gddr5-1226mhz-boost-2048-stre
rx470 prices almost match gtx 1060 3gb


----------



## Hiryougan (Oct 25, 2016)

ZeroFM said:


> Check fc prices https://www.scan.co.uk/products/nda...-4gb-gddr5-graphics-card-768-core-1290mhz-gpu VS
> https://www.scan.co.uk/products/4gb...pcie-30-6600mhz-gddr5-1226mhz-boost-2048-stre
> rx470 prices almost match gtx 1060 3gb


So? It's UK. That doesn't mean it's like that everywhere man.


----------



## sanadanosa (Oct 25, 2016)

Hiryougan said:


> So? It's UK. That doesn't mean it's like that everywhere man.


That pricing is actually pretty common outside the US. Here, Rx 470 price is too close to Rx 480 4gb and 1060 3gb.


----------



## efikkan (Oct 25, 2016)

If RX 470 is in the mix, then GTX 1060 should also be, since it's up for grabs really cheap some places. There is no doubt that GTX 1060 is the better deal.


----------



## Dimi (Oct 25, 2016)

Yes lets pick out the most expensive one and then say nvidia messed up.

How about instead you just buy one for 139 dollar on Newegg and stop complaining about prices when there's other options available?


----------



## Casecutter (Oct 25, 2016)

Wow Custom OC and then 25% off a reference 470, for $165... Flop, flip, flop, flounder someone smash that fish with a stick!

It's about what I figured in that reference spec cards would come in above a 960, but not like a R9 380, this OC'd 1050Ti is like what most 380 2Gb Customs provided.

Though some perspective as this is like a GTX 680 / 7970Ghz level performance though sips power!  That what's amazing.  While moving from "Enthusiast" grade of 2012. to "Entry" level by 2016...

After looking at other reviews to buy a single fan ($140) 1050Ti as an upgrade to stuff 750Ti and less has some merit, but even then just an moderate upgrade from a 750ti.  If you need to play most new titles 1080p with aplomb it does the job.  If you want 1080p and play everything fine without hardly changing from top settings, the extra $30 (~20%) goes a long way!


----------



## Fluffmeister (Oct 25, 2016)

Wow these things sip power. Going Samsung 14nm certainly didn't hurt Pascal's impressive efficiency.


----------



## Supercrit (Oct 25, 2016)

I just dislike the fact they made a huge card with such empty board.
The power consumption on the other hand, holy crap, it makes me think what the hell is AMD doing with their 14nm.


----------



## xorbe (Oct 25, 2016)

Personally I think 1060 3gb still king of the hill wrt entry level gaming card, but this is a solid upgrade for the 750Ti segment


----------



## natr0n (Oct 25, 2016)




----------



## dont whant to set it"' (Oct 25, 2016)

That high price of the Nv1050Ti is darn high beacuse here MRSP is dead(there was at least a period some time ago when prices of pc components were bang on the mrsp maybe with a5% on top at most).
After some time , playing on the GMA 510 of my Pentium G4400 and awaiting Nv's response to the RX460 ,here, both are dead in the water considering to upgrade for more graphics accelerating power, with a third option arising in the form of the Skylake i3 6320 with its fully fleged L3 cache[Ithink], highest clockspeed of th ai3's, twice the ExecutionUnists of an G4400, so on and so forth, but thats just me.
Also I'd be trading in my pentiumG4400, this being the strong point for this option;all of above 2cents a huge maybe.


----------



## spidermansnot (Oct 25, 2016)

W1zzard - could you update the Performance/Dollar charts and add new bars to reflect AMD's latest price drops on the 460 and 470? Great review as always. Very, umh, "interesting" card.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 25, 2016)

spidermansnot said:


> W1zzard - could you update the Performance/Dollar charts and add new bars to reflect AMD's latest price drops on the 460 and 470? Great review as always. Very, umh, "interesting" card.


I'm already using 470 4 GB at $170 and 480 8 GB at $250. Which was the Newegg prices yesterday.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 25, 2016)

MSI have a pole up their arse when it comes to pricing - their cards across the Nvidia range are flat out extortionate.

Wait for a Palit Gamerock version to make it look like a gold plated colander.


----------



## spidermansnot (Oct 25, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> I'm already using 470 4 GB at $170 and 480 8 GB at $250. Which was the Newegg prices yesterday.


Thanks, but I was actually referring to the $99 price for the RX 460 and $160 for the RX 470. It'd merely be "out of interest" to see what the effect would be, if any. Trouble with any card, as always, is whether you can actually buy one for the price they're advertised at. Thanks for the speedy reply.


----------



## Readlight (Oct 25, 2016)

Not interested in cards whitout vga suport unles some friend wont sel me gtx 950 for 80 euro
because the price for XFX rx480 is 321€, 470 298€, 460 150€ and msi 950 155€
and nvida is only good for old games.
My country is not in list in neweg but i think everything goes to Poland and then to other countries.
ps4 totaly suks.


----------



## Alduin (Oct 25, 2016)

I thought that if there were no Rx 400 series
How much we have to pay for 
Gtx 1050(ti), 1060.


----------



## SetsunaFZero (Oct 25, 2016)

looks like the bios power target is limiting this card


----------



## N3M3515 (Oct 25, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> I'm already using 470 4 GB at $170 and 480 8 GB at $250. Which was the Newegg prices yesterday.



What about RX 480 4GB?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...n=rx 480 4 gb&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36


----------



## Frick (Oct 25, 2016)

It feels like we only have choice of two cards in the ≤€200 range: GTX1050 and RX470. The 1050ti is so close to the RX 470 it's silly.


----------



## wrathchild_67 (Oct 25, 2016)

The 470 is the better card in the price range, but the 1050 ti without a power connector can't be beat for systems that have strict power requirements. I'm currently running an Asrock X99 ITX board with a 65w 8 core Xeon and a Geforce 950 with no power connector. It's powered by a 160w Pico PSU and at full load the system draws 150w. I'd get a Radeon 470 if the power envelope was anywhere near the 1050 ti, or there was a higher wattage Pico PSU, but I'm stuck with 75w GPUs. I'll wait for pirces to settle and mail in rebates to start showing up on the 1050 ti before replacing my 950.


----------



## Jeffredo (Oct 25, 2016)

How did TPU arrive at the GTX 1050 Ti being 20% faster than a GTX 960?  There aren't many reviews out there yet but the ones I've read have had them much closer (which is what I heard was going to be the case several weeks ago).

http://www.techspot.com/review/1269-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050/

They use a GTX 960 4GB vs the 2GB here, but I don't think it would make that much difference @ 1080p.


----------



## sergionography (Oct 25, 2016)

Jeffredo said:


> How did TPU arrive at the GTX 1050 Ti being 20% faster than a GTX 960?  There aren't many reviews out there yet but the ones I've read have had them much closer (which is what I heard was going to be the case several weeks ago).
> 
> http://www.techspot.com/review/1269-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050/
> 
> They use a GTX 960 4GB vs the 2GB here, but I don't think it would make that much difference @ 1080p.



Here they are using a slightly overclocked card. 5-10% extra performance from that alone. Not to mention having external power delivery and better cooling means running at boast clock pretty much at all times vs reference model.


----------



## ppn (Oct 26, 2016)

15% oc 8% gained, it may be throttling slightly due to hardware 75W limitation still present despite having 6 pin.. I'd  rather wait see the move to GDDR5X . The same kind of improvement like GTX 650 Ti and 650 Ti boost, 5 months apart, the latter getting 192 bit bus, this time 10GBps instead of 7 GBps. And maybe second revision to hit 2.0 Ghz. Nice overall, 25% better than RX460 per sq.mm.


----------



## kingkongtol (Oct 26, 2016)

no civ vi result?, would you add civ vi to your review? @W1zzard


----------



## Melvis (Oct 26, 2016)

$140 hey? https://www.pccasegear.com/category/193_1862/graphics-cards/geforce-gtx-1050-ti LOL yeah right!

Performance is basically where I expected it to be, in between the 960/970 but that price, really? Australia gets ripped off again!

Just get a used GTX 970 for less...


----------



## ZoneDymo (Oct 26, 2016)

So why is there not more of an outrage about this artificial overclocking limiting that Nvidia is pulling with the 1000 series?


----------



## Prima.Vera (Oct 26, 2016)

ZoneDymo said:


> So why is there not more of an outrage about this artificial overclocking limiting that Nvidia is pulling with the 1000 series?


Maybe this is the limit on the GPU, they look like they are oc already. I mean look at the freqs


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 26, 2016)

kingkongtol said:


> no civ vi result?, would you add civ vi to your review? @W1zzard


Civ 6, Mafia 3, Battlefield 1 and Shadow Warrior 2 will be added in next rebench


----------



## Casecutter (Oct 26, 2016)

Frick said:


> The 1050ti is so close to the RX 470 it's silly.


----------



## Frick (Oct 26, 2016)

Casecutter said:


>



I mean in price.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Oct 27, 2016)

Well at least AMD know how the products line up, if MSI want to overcharge that is up to them.


----------



## Jeffredo (Oct 27, 2016)

Fluffmeister said:


> Well at least AMD know how the products line up, if MSI want to overcharge that is up to them.


Why on earth would they want to showcase this? All I see are gaps on AMD's side.


----------



## ppn (Oct 27, 2016)

There needs to be only one card. Less gaps that way.


----------



## HD64G (Oct 27, 2016)

A nice review again @W1zzard !

I can see that in other reviews as at http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1050_and_1050_ti_gaming_x_review,1.html
there are wider differences in performance between 1050 and 1050Ti (35% more for Ti there) and between Ti and RX470 (40% more for 470 there), so the gamelist is very important now that Vulcan and DX12 have more games on their side.


----------



## Jeffredo (Oct 27, 2016)

sergionography said:


> Here they are using a slightly overclocked card. 5-10% extra performance from that alone. Not to mention having external power delivery and better cooling means running at boast clock pretty much at all times vs reference model.



Exactly.  The review should have used stock clocks to establish a baseline comparison between a GTX 1050 Ti and GTX 960 4GB.  Same with the GTX 1050 review.  Once that's done review the factory overclocked custom designs.  I've looked over a few reviews that have used stock speeds and that cuts the increase in performance of both cards down to 10% or less compared to the GTX 950 and GTX 960.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 27, 2016)

Jeffredo said:


> The review should have used stock clocks


Due to how Boost works just setting reference clocks will not result in reference performance. Gotta buy a card that has same base and boost clocks as NVIDIA ref.


----------



## hat (Oct 29, 2016)

I'd like one (maybe not this particular expensive model) to replace my 660 Ti. The performance and efficiency is much more than my 4 generations old card.


----------



## illli (Oct 29, 2016)

so.. does not look like much of an upgrade compared to my 660ti, which is on par with the 960. A few frames more, but not much. 
Meanwhile I find this review strange b/c nobody in their right mind will try to play games with this card running at 3840x2160. I think it would have been better to do some tests running at a lesser resolution than 1080 instead


----------



## BSim500 (Oct 30, 2016)

illli said:


> Meanwhile I find this review strange b/c nobody in their right mind will try to play games with this card running at 3840x2160. I think it would have been better to do some tests running at a lesser resolution than 1080 instead


Or better still, do all tests at 1080p but test a lot more "mid-weight" games than the usual AAA's (or test AAA's on Med/High). "_We only bothered to test only the newest AAA games on Ultra for the sake of consistency_" is a pointless excuse for low-end reviews as relevance trumps consistency every time. ie, people who want 60fps Ultra mins in bleeding edge AAA's don't buy bottom rung cards, and people who buy bottom rung cards don't care about 1440p / 4K resolutions, obsess over Ultra presets or even play the newest AAA games. Neither group will care about comparing 1050's vs 1070/1080's or be interested in unplayable results like 18fps 1050Ti vs 10fps RX460 at 4K.

How does Skyrim, Talos Principle, etc, run on these at 1080p? Why do tech sites stop reviewing games that are significantly higher up in Steam's most played list than modern AAA's? Does the Witcher 3's 36fps on Ultra get boosted to nearer 60fps if you drop down to Med/High and if so, how about a couple of screenshots showing any visual differences? Does "Ultra" even massively boost immersion, or is it another Crysis 3 (and many more examples) of being well into the realms of depreciating gains?

^ This stuff is far more useful to budget gamers than simply replicating the same tiny ultra-narrow subset of Doom, DX:MD, BF4, ROTT, etc, out of thousands of widely played games that 19 other sites have done. In fact many budget gamers have long stopped reading such reviews and resorted to amateur Youtube benchmarks showing what sensible settings (with often barely perceptible differences) will give 60fps in practise.

I know we've always had rubbish gaming benchmark "reviews", from testing games at 640x480 (in an era of 1024x768 to 1280x1024 monitors) to exaggerate differences in CPU's to modern day testing low-end stuff at 4K Ultra for the sake of epeen approval (which doesn't even apply to relevant target market), but come on guys, the first site that actually "gets" target market relevancy and uses a little more common sense for low-end hardware will be ad-block white-listed for life.


----------



## EdInk (Oct 31, 2016)

Are all the titles retested using all the cards or new ones are added to the database?  If this is the case, won't there be inconsistencies as driver updates may improve GPU performance over time...just curious.


----------



## W1zzard (Oct 31, 2016)

EdInk said:


> Are all the titles retested using all the cards or new ones are added to the database?  If this is the case, won't there be inconsistencies as driver updates may improve GPU performance over time...just curious.



All games and cards were tested with the drivers listed above, no performance results were recycled between test systems. Only this exact system with exactly the same configuration was used.
From the test setup page. Is there anything unclear about the statement? How can it be improved?


----------



## EdInk (Oct 31, 2016)

W1zzard said:


> All games and cards were tested with the drivers listed above, no performance results were recycled between test systems. Only this exact system with exactly the same configuration was used.
> From the test setup page. Is there anything unclear about the statement? How can it be improved?



Excellent! feel more confident with results. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## ผ่อมด (Nov 4, 2016)

> GPU overclocking is capped too, at 1911 MHz actual frequency after GPU Boost, but the implementation seems buggy. Even though it shows 1911 MHz, the actual clock can still be increased; at beyond 1911 MHz displayed, the card will run at higher performance, and at even higher clocks, it will get increasingly unstable.



Sounds more like a VBIOS limit and the 1911MHz point is being starved of voltage as it is pushed further and further back along the voltage points of the curve each time the OC offset is increased. Eventually not enough voltage to be stable.

By using fixed voltage (not VF point) so the voltage is constant while GPU clock is free to change we can put in a silly offset and still be rock stable as GPU clock is capped to 1911MHz.

Here is with 1GHz+ offset.






The curve is a little too high to show in AB, just the first 3 points can be seen, however the capped 1911MHz point can be seen. Valley shows the maximum performance clock which is a little over 3GHz and this would be our maximum boost if not capped to 1911MHz. Would also depend on temperature and if able to be stable at that frequency of course.


----------



## Nick89 (Feb 7, 2017)

Great Review as usual.


----------



## Clariska (Dec 13, 2017)

I got one of these cards as a bday present last month.I personally am truly impressed.I aint much of a gamer reason why i never bothered to upgraded my amd 4170 k cpu lol.But in rise of tomb raider i got 49 fps on max details just with fxaa on 1920x1080 with little overclocking.Thats quite playable.


----------

