AMD Radeon RX 560 vs. GTX 1050

[RealNeil]

Say what you will about the 560 against the 1050 cards,................(yes, I understand that this is not a review)
One fact about this latest generation of NVIDIA cards is that they're gimped and AMD is not.

It's the 800-pound Gorilla in the room.

What do I mean? (All of NVIDIA'a lower cost cards don't do SLI and all of AMD's do Crossfire)

Now, I understand that Crossfire/SLI doesn't mean a damn thing to many enthusiasts out there, but it ~does~ to a lot of us. Sometimes the scaling is good, other times it isn't. When it's working right, I like it. I like it with my 1070s, my 980Ti cards, my RX480s, and my RX580s too. My four R9-290Xs do it right as well.
With the price of high-end GPUs soaring to new heights, many of us prefer to buy ~two~ lower-cost cards over a few months time and get the power of two GPUs working for us.
While one more powerful card may work better in games, that's harder to afford for some of us.

So to me, it doesn't matter that 1050 is faster than 560. It means squat because it doesn't beat a pair of 560s. (and that's the endgame for many of us)
NVIDIA Gimping SLI on some of their cards was completely stupid to do. This is foremost in my mind when I read these comparisons.

NVIDIA wins the "screw the little guy" award this time.

 

[bug]

Say what you will about the 560 against the 1050 cards,................(yes, I understand that this is not a review)
One fact about this latest generation of NVIDIA cards is that they're gimped and AMD is not.

It's the 800-pound Gorilla in the room.

What do I mean? (All of NVIDIA'a lower cost cards don't do SLI and all of AMD's do Crossfire)

Now, I understand that Crossfire/SLI doesn't mean a damn thing to many enthusiasts out there, but it ~does~ to a lot of us. Sometimes the scaling is good, other times it isn't. When it's working right, I like it. I like it with my 1070s, my 980Ti cards, my RX480s, and my RX580s too. My four R9-290Xs do it right as well.
With the price of high-end GPUs soaring to new heights, many of us prefer to buy ~two~ lower-cost cards over a few months time and get the power of two GPUs working for us.
While one more powerful card may work better in games, that's harder to afford for some of us.

So to me, it doesn't matter that 1050 is faster than 560. It means squat because it doesn't beat a pair of 560s. (and that's the endgame for many of us)
NVIDIA Gimping SLI on some of their cards was completely stupid to do. This is foremost in my mind when I read these comparisons.

NVIDIA wins the "screw the little guy" award this time.

Who the hell runs low-end cards in SLI/Crossfire? If I were on a budget, that's would be the first feature I go cross from my motherboard anyway.

And although you talk a lot about "us" as if you're the group Nvidia supposedly screwed, your specs tell me otherwise.

And I've bolded some parts that I don't understand: if you know SLI/Crossfire is still hit or miss (emergent technology, it's only been with us for a decade or so), why would you go for two weaker cards?

 

[Nihilus]

EDIT: I really like how the result for Resident Evil shows 63 fps, yet AMD saw fit to stop the bar right at 60 fps... can't have a 1050 manage 60 fps+, huh?

Strangely, the Mass Effect 50 bar goes WAY too far. Further than the Doom 57.

 

[RealNeil]

Who the hell runs low-end cards in SLI/Crossfire? If I were on a budget, that's would be the first feature I go cross from my motherboard anyway.

And although you talk a lot about "us" as if you're the group Nvidia supposedly screwed, your specs tell me otherwise.

And I've bolded some parts that I don't understand: if you know SLI/Crossfire is still hit or miss (emergent technology, it's only been with us for a decade or so), why would you go for two weaker cards?

I'm on a retirement income that never increases. Sometimes I ~have~ to spend less to get the performance I want. I used a pair of 4GB GTX-760s for a while. My two RX480 8GB cards were bought second hand from someone who upgraded. The same is true for my 1070s and my 980Ti cards. All of them were heavily discounted. In fact, most of my PC gear is second hand or bought as refurbished from Newegg.

 

[the54thvoid]

You can ask him. He hasn't replied to anyone of the others so don't hold your breath or do your choice. Hes not passing it off as an independent review.

Anyone who bothered reading it can see its clearly marked. Even before you click it in the front page section it was marked as such. The only issue I can see its placement in the top scroll banner but that's TPU decision to place it there. You can complain all you want doesn't mean they will change it. Kind of speaks more to the people here though that are easy duped by a icon placement and there inability to differentiate. Even going so far as to say damaging his credibility or the sites for their inability.

The bolded section. It's that clear. I say it damages credibility because it's true. In the exact same way some of the previous editorials have stirred up a shit storm, so too, this does the same. I'm not unintelligent and I'm not duped by things - I clicked the thing I saw in the review section before i even got to the main text of the web page, so if you didnt look down, you wouldn't have seen it.
I can differentiate and that top section is clearly for reviews. This is not a review and therefore should not be there. It says nothing about me being duped, it says nothing about me. No problem at all about it's position in the main page where it says 'advertorial' (in fact - I only saw that after I read the 'review').

Personal attacks aren't necessary when you're making a sweeping judgement about people's naivety, especially when you yourself admit it is an issue that it's in the review banner.

What would your stance be if it was an Nvidia advertorial?

 

[5DVX0130]

"Advertorial by AMD"

I always took your site pretty seriously. Guess that's over...

The issue isn't that it is an advertorial.

The issue is that it doesn’t belong in the reviews section. It is also pretty much a click-bait article, since both the title and graphics don’t (in any way) indicate it is an advertorial. The only hint to it being that is the small tag in the news, and in the reviews section as the “author”. Seeing as there are so many user names it’s not hard to imagine someone would assume “Advertorial” is an user name. As for the news section, once new “news” cover that up, it’s just down to the reviews section. Thus, you have to click the article to see it’s not really a review, i.e. click-bait.

 

[Xzibit]

The bolded section. It's that clear. I say it damages credibility because it's true. In the exact same way some of the previous editorials have stirred up a shit storm, so too, this does the same. I'm not unintelligent and I'm not duped by things - I clicked the thing I saw in the review section before i even got to the main text of the web page, so if you didnt look down, you wouldn't have seen it.
I can differentiate and that top section is clearly for reviews. This is not a review and therefore should not be there. It says nothing about me being duped, it says nothing about me. No problem at all about it's position in the main page where it says 'advertorial' (in fact - I only saw that after I read the 'review').

Personal attacks aren't necessary when you're making a sweeping judgement about people's naivety, especially when you yourself admit it is an issue that it's in the review banner.

What would your stance be if it was an Nvidia advertorial?

The same. If there is errors point them out (that's been done) I don't feel the need or urge to chime in on every thread. Unless i see something strange or funny.

If you recall how many of those times have those editorials been addressed? very few if at all (The ones I participated I don't recall being address). Unless its a blatant issue or miss by them they will fix it, if not it stays put.

I'm surprised a tracking ad banner campaign hasn't started yet given the reaction. Soon they'll want to track company ad time on the site. X company review is BS because it spend so and so much ad time blah, blah, blah.

 

[Maban]

I don't like this and would prefer not to see it alongside legitimate reviews. At the very least it should have its own section or just be part of the news feed.

 

[dj-electric]

It means squat because it doesn't beat a pair of 560s. (and that's the endgame for many of us)

since the dawn of multi GPU configs, coupling 2 low end cards in a setup was always proven to be one of the dumbest things a user can do.

If you have money for two 560s, buy a god damn 570.
No 2 card setup is long lasting. It has poor support, poor amount of resources for demanding games and after a while instead of staying with a valuable piece of hardware, you're left with junk that nobody is willing to buy.

so please, enough with the "but its gimped" argument. we're not 14. If the card performs well, is efficient and affordable that all that matters. nobody should care if it has X-amount of cores instead of Y-amount when looking from a pure performance and price perspective.

Thank goodness for silly things like low-end multi-GPU configs being gone, hopefully soon in the red camp as well. Let the devs invest their time and effort into more single-GPU optimized software.

 

[RejZoR]

multi-GPU only makes sense when you're already reaching at top cards and there is nothing more to buy as single GPU for higher performance. Only way to achieve more is to pair 2 top of the line cards. For anything lower, single GPU is always a better option.

 

[Vayra86]

This is painful.

Don't do this again.

 

[KLMR]

Whats the source of this image???

Because:

 

[notb]

Whats the source of this image???

1) You've made an incorrect assumption that the vertical line (lets call it A) on the left is 0 - clearly it's not.
When you check the red bars (AMD), they're actually very coherent: 5px = 1fps.
That means A = 11fps.
2) NVIDIA bars don't have a common 0 or even scale. Here 57 < 50 < 63. It's a total mess.
Clearly bars don't match the labels, but which one is correct (if any?)
This is how it would look with no "zero shift" and using labels (values) and bars (length - assuming A=11fps).

 

[Dimi]

1) You've made an incorrect assumption that the vertical line (lets call it A) on the left is 0 - clearly it's not.
When you check the red bars (AMD), they're actually very coherent: 5px = 1fps.
That means A = 11fps.
2) NVIDIA bars don't have a common 0 or even scale. Here 57 < 50 < 63. It's a total mess.
Clearly bars don't match the labels, but which one is correct (if any?)
This is how it would look with no "zero shift" and using labels (values) and bars (length - assuming A=11fps).

63 should go PAST the 60 FPS line, are you blind? This is false advertising at its finest.

The vertical line is 60 FPS. Not 0.

 

[notb]

63 should go PAST the 60 FPS line, are you blind? This is false advertising at its finest.

The vertical line is 60 FPS. Not 0.

I meant the left one (which @KLMR treated as 0).
And 63 fps is not past 60 fps line because, as I've pointed out, a theoretical "60fps" point calculated using AMD bars should not be used for NVIDIA bars. They have different scales and base points (each GTX bar exists in its own world). This whole visualization is a mess.

If you look at the graphs I've provided, the first one (that assumes the numbers are correct, not the bars) looks actually a lot better for AMD. So if they manipulated the graph on purpose to improve RX560 appearance, they didn't do it very well...

 

[renz496]

Say what you will about the 560 against the 1050 cards,................(yes, I understand that this is not a review)
One fact about this latest generation of NVIDIA cards is that they're gimped and AMD is not.

It's the 800-pound Gorilla in the room.

What do I mean? (All of NVIDIA'a lower cost cards don't do SLI and all of AMD's do Crossfire)

Now, I understand that Crossfire/SLI doesn't mean a damn thing to many enthusiasts out there, but it ~does~ to a lot of us. Sometimes the scaling is good, other times it isn't. When it's working right, I like it. I like it with my 1070s, my 980Ti cards, my RX480s, and my RX580s too. My four R9-290Xs do it right as well.
With the price of high-end GPUs soaring to new heights, many of us prefer to buy ~two~ lower-cost cards over a few months time and get the power of two GPUs working for us.
While one more powerful card may work better in games, that's harder to afford for some of us.

So to me, it doesn't matter that 1050 is faster than 560. It means squat because it doesn't beat a pair of 560s. (and that's the endgame for many of us)
NVIDIA Gimping SLI on some of their cards was completely stupid to do. This is foremost in my mind when I read these comparisons.

NVIDIA wins the "screw the little guy" award this time.

i can understand the disappointment about x60 card having no SLI support but low end card? seriously? 1050ti for example cost around 140-150. two of them will net 280-300. the GTX 1060 can be had much cheaper than that with guaranteed 60% performance lead over a single 1050ti. the card can probably scale well but then again how many games will be able to take advantage of the second card?

 

[RejZoR]

The mass Effect one is especially weird. NVIDIA's from 53 to 60fps line is like 2mm, but for AMD, from 60fps line to 70 is like 15mm distance. Makes zero sense.

 

[semitope]

people freaking out over nothing. they are so open about what this is and people still complaining. How about when sites use information from companies and don't even tell you where its coming from?

The mass Effect one is especially weird. NVIDIA's from 53 to 60fps line is like 2mm, but for AMD, from 60fps line to 70 is like 15mm distance. Makes zero sense.

the whole chart is messed up. someone sucks really bad at charts. its not even in AMDs favor because their lead is scaled badly. when they have 16 fps lead it looks like a smaller gap than 11 fps. its all kinds of messed up. additionally the labeling for the y axis is wrong based on the disclaimer that shows the actual settings used. mass effect is not high, its low. someone was high making that. Not necessarily trying to be dishonest.

 

[Primey_]

"Advertorial by AMD"

Time to stop visiting and trusting techpowerup.

 

[EarthDog]

Not received well....

This is how I found out about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/6jgv5i/psa_read_very_carefully_who_is_posting_video_card/

Spreading like wildfire...

 

[r9]

It would have made so much more sense if they paid TPU just to do a review of that scenario.
Provable the results would not have been far off, without anybody hurting their credibility and reputation.
Me personally can't say I'm happy with all of this.
But lets be honest here nobody got fulled by this.
And I think we all need to give TPU a break.
Everybody that thinks that this is good enough reason to leave TPU don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[EarthDog]

The curious part to me is this is an advertorial... but in the reviews section. Reviews are, by nature supposed to be impartial. Clearly, since this was written by amd, its not impartial. An editorial has no busniess being in a review section either. Put it in editorials or, if this is going to be a thing moving forward, make it its own section.

I dont mind these either, but lets call a spade a spade...which this is not an unbiased review, but a paid advertisement.

 

[semitope]

The curious part to me is this is an advertorial... but in the reviews section. Reviews are, by nature supposed to be impartial. Clearly, since this was written by amd, its not impartial. An editorial has no busniess being in a review section either. Put it in editorials or, if this is going to be a thing moving forward, make it its own section.

I dont mind these either, but lets call a spade a spade...which this is not an unbiased review, but a paid advertisement.

TPU puts interviews in the reviews section and product launch info there.

there's an editorial section?

 

[EarthDog]

Not sure, but there should be if they are going to post advertorials. While I am 100% certain it wasn't intended to mislead, we can see it being there lends itself for misinterpretation.

 

[Jadawin]

I'm extremely disappointed. I have written Advertorials myself - and they have always been clearly marked in a way that can't be overlooked. Also none of them have been in the form of a review, which by itself is ridiculous. A review, written by the company that pays for the advertorial and marked only by the authors name and smallprint? This is intentionally misleading.