Monday, May 21st 2018
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3GB Memory Bus-width Confirmed: A Major Trade-off
NVIDIA's entry-level GeForce GTX 1050 launched in a new 3 GB variant, earlier this month, with 50 percent more memory than the 2 GB which the original GTX 1050 launched with. But there's a major catch that's relegated to the fine-print of the card's specifications on NVIDIA website, and something most NVIDIA AIC (add-in-card) partners won't particularly blare on their product packaging anywhere near as loudly as the memory amount, and that's memory bus width. The 3 GB GTX 1050 has 50 percent more memory than the original GTX 1050, but a 25% narrower memory bus, at just 96-bit.
When you look at a GTX 1050 3 GB graphics card PCB, you'll likely only find three 8 Gb (1 GB) memory chips, with one set of memory chip traces blanked out. It's not even like NVIDIA compensated for the narrower memory bus with higher memory clocks. The chips run at the same 7 Gbps as the original's, yielding just 84 GB/s memory bandwidth, compared to the original's 112 GB/s. The CUDA core count of the GTX 1050 3 GB is the same as the GTX 1050 Ti, with 768 CUDA cores, which twitch their thumbs as data is moved between the GPU and memory over Pony Express. Besides more CUDA cores, the GPU clocks are marginally higher, with 1392 MHz base and 1518 MHz GPU Boost, compared to 1354/1455 MHz of the original. NVIDIA, which recently sermonized the industry on "making products easier for consumers to identify" with its stillborn GPP, is once again caught concealing a major specification. To find it, you'll need to visit the product page of the GTX 1050, scroll all the way down to the specs sheet, and click on "view full specs" to reveal the memory bus width.
When you look at a GTX 1050 3 GB graphics card PCB, you'll likely only find three 8 Gb (1 GB) memory chips, with one set of memory chip traces blanked out. It's not even like NVIDIA compensated for the narrower memory bus with higher memory clocks. The chips run at the same 7 Gbps as the original's, yielding just 84 GB/s memory bandwidth, compared to the original's 112 GB/s. The CUDA core count of the GTX 1050 3 GB is the same as the GTX 1050 Ti, with 768 CUDA cores, which twitch their thumbs as data is moved between the GPU and memory over Pony Express. Besides more CUDA cores, the GPU clocks are marginally higher, with 1392 MHz base and 1518 MHz GPU Boost, compared to 1354/1455 MHz of the original. NVIDIA, which recently sermonized the industry on "making products easier for consumers to identify" with its stillborn GPP, is once again caught concealing a major specification. To find it, you'll need to visit the product page of the GTX 1050, scroll all the way down to the specs sheet, and click on "view full specs" to reveal the memory bus width.
43 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3GB Memory Bus-width Confirmed: A Major Trade-off
People should stop obsessing over paper specs, this isn't 2008 anymore.
It should have been 4GB for this new 1050 or discontinue the card, in my opinion.
But I don't get why Nvidia is refreshing their low-end lineup. There is simply no need for this amount of options among low-end hardware, with GT 1030, GTX 1050 and GTX 1050 Ti all having 2-3 variations of memory and/or core configuration, then multiply this with all the AIBs making each of these with different coolers and "OC versions", like if a 3% overclock on a GTX 1050 is going to matter. Two models in total is more than enough to cover the entire low end. And don't get me started on the GTX 1060 variants, what are we up to now, 5?
This is not a Nvidia thing, AMD is just as guilty in this. And vendors, if you want to make it easier for the consumers, make one version of each product.
And in some task, the 5GB even worse than 3GB.
There are no point releasing this kind of memory bandwidth cut down in exchange for CUDA core.
Since those card price point is very close. $100 and $130. What is this MSRP? $115?
P/s: yeah, I know it nowhere near the MSRP, that for reference only
When it comes to the next generation; Nvidia can release it anytime now…
I'm sure that this is the card what we're going to see in OEM PCs.
nope, 10% ish difference.
1030 ddr4 vs gddr and it's like going from barely playable to hey it can run windows just like my intel IGP can.
RX560 issue is not to be neglected, it does matter.
Lets say you bought a 1080TI just to find out it performs like a 1080 would it matter? YES it does!
2. You got baited on that example. The 3GB version of the GTX 1060 has 11% less CUDA cores (1152) compered to the 6GB version (1280)
You proven exactly what i was talking about. One shouldn't care about paper specs, but actual performance numbers.
gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-780-Ti-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1050/2165vs3650
With that kind of power, you are not going to be pushing things like ultra details/MSAA/2K/4K. At 1080p high settings, 3GB if VRAM is more then enough for most modern games, with the exception of poorly coded ports. Back when I had my GTX 770 2GB in 2016, I was pushing ultra/max MSAA at 1080p in nearly every game and not maxing out the VRAM buffer, except for a few specific games like wolfenstein and Forza.
The buyer of 1050 type GPUs will most likely either be playing at even lower resolutions, playing older or less demanding titles like indie games or esports titles, or doesnt mind playing on medium/high instead of ultra. These use cases dont need tons of VRAM to function, 3GB will be more then sufficient for the GPU in question, especially at 96 bit, where memory bandwidth will hamper performance long before buffer size will.