Gigabyte GTX 1050 Ti G1 Gaming 4 GB

[W1zzard]

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]

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]

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

 

[W1zzard]

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]

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

 

[sutyi]

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]

$170.00?!

 

[catulitechup]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

[illli]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bug]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Chart titles have been updated. Thanks for the feedback!