GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of RX 470 vs 1050 Ti among all GPUs


Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more


T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more


Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more

Performance per Watt

Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more

Noise and Power

TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more


Overall Score

AMD Radeon RX 470 

GPUBoss recommends the AMD Radeon RX 470  based on its benchmarks and compute performance.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Radeon RX 470

Reasons to consider the
AMD Radeon RX 470

Report a correction
Significantly higher memory bandwidth 211.2 GB/s vs 112.1 GB/s Around 90% higher memory bandwidth
Better floating-point performance 4,940 GFLOPS vs 1,981.4 GFLOPS Around 2.5x better floating-point performance
Better PassMark score 7,261 vs 5,879 Around 25% better PassMark score
Higher texture rate 154.4 GTexel/s vs 61.9 GTexel/s Around 2.5x higher texture rate
Significantly more shading units 2,048 vs 768 1280 more shading units
Significantly more texture mapping units 128 vs 48 80 more texture mapping units
Better ocean surface simulation score 1,862.86 frames/s vs 1,132.96 frames/s Around 65% better ocean surface simulation score
Better sky diver factor score 367.8 vs 335.39 Around 10% better sky diver factor score
Better PassMark direct compute score 3,916 vs 3,224 More than 20% better PassMark direct compute score
Front view of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Reasons to consider the
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 1,290 MHz vs 926 MHz Around 40% higher clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 1,392 MHz vs 1,206 MHz More than 15% higher turbo clock speed
Slightly higher memory clock speed 1,752 MHz vs 1,650 MHz More than 5% higher memory clock speed
Lower TDP 75W vs 120W Around 40% lower TDP

Benchmarks Real world tests of Radeon RX 470 vs GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Bitcoin mining Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 470
495.27 mHash/s
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
324.72 mHash/s

Face detection Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 470
111.59 mPixels/s
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
94.59 mPixels/s

Ocean surface simulation Data courtesy CompuBench

Radeon RX 470
1,862.86 frames/s
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
1,132.96 frames/s

T-Rex (GFXBench 3.0) Data courtesy CompuBench

Fire Strike Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Sky Diver Factor Data courtesy FutureMark

Battlefield 4

Crysis 3


Showing 25 comments.
You're the one who called me an idiot and told me to cry some more, but I'm being a rude dick. Gotcha :D
Stop being such a rude dick ;_;
LOL, I received an email saying you replied calling me an idiot and telling me to cry to some because I called you out on your exaggerations. Looks like you might have deleted it. You went from saying you could save 164,25€ in two years to saying your savings in one year is enough for a new card in your most recent comment. Sure, I'm the crying idiot. lmao! :D (BTW, never criticized your card choice, just amused by your last reponse)
Well that escalated quickly. Now you're saying with your power savings in a year by using a 1050 Ti vs RX 470 you can buy a new card? GTFOH
You completely missed my closing point with my last comment. Your situation is not a normal situation, even for gamers- a lot of whom have lives outside of eating, sleeping, and gaming all day. You've been talking like efficiency is such a life-changing factor- it might be for you and your situation, but for the rest of us who work 40+hours a week and have friends to visit with and other hobbies, the amount of money we save on efficiency becomes considerably less and it makes it less of an obstacle towards the visually nicer experience. The value of a graphics card isn't just how much it costs to purchase and use, or nobody would have ever bought the R9 295x2 or Titan X. Things that factor into value might be features (having a Freesync monitor, for instance, makes an RX 470 a much wiser choice than a 1050 Ti in every instance except for power draw), potential for higher frame rates, or even nicer graphics settings, and possible discounts or hookups (buying used or doing an EP). The 470 offers almost all of that over the 1050 Ti except for the power draw, which for most users comes down to the previously mentioned "$15 more yearly for a 470". I digress, though. The point I'm trying to get across now is that I'm not arguing anymore that you've not found the best solution for you, or that you're wrong (It'll still take longer than a year to save for your 'new' graphics card, which BTW, if it's an 'upgrade' in any way, is going bump up your electrical bill regardless of what card it is) . What I'm saying is that your approach is very specific to you and doesn't necessarily apply to everybody else. I game considerably less than you, work a hell of a lot more than you, and care more for a high-fidelity experience. Yes, my game runs smoothly, but I'm also getting higher frame rates and better graphics quality. The more expensive card becomes a better value when the end user wants to look at nicer images, higher framerates, and (once out of the budget level and into mainstream performance) 1440p/4k/VR. Another side note: "Fluid" gameplay is very vague. Console gamers consider 24 to be fluid. I don't consider anything less than 90 to be fluid, especially if there are any frame time variances. A 1050 Ti is not going to be powerful enough for most users once they get used to a higher framerate and refresh rate (admittedly, neither will a 470, but that's why I've got an 8gb 480).
Lind L Taylor If I work 9 Hours, and game 10 hours, I still have 5 Hours left. And while showering I have the game running and I'm logged inside but I am afk. While eating the same. But the game runs and pulls energy out of the power plug :) And I do not have a work right now. Since I am ill and so I can't work in my condition. That's why I have so much time where I'm bored and so I play alot :) And even if I only saved 50€ it's still 50€. Money I do not need to waste if this lower consumption card renders my games fluid. No need for a higher consuming card, to gain more frames per second, I don't even need. Since my game ran fluid nonetheless :)
I'm still skeptical of this... I mean, you claim to live alone and pay your bills and everything yourself. You'd have to be a very highly paid sponsored gamer to make enough money gaming 10 hours a day to support yourself. So... Yes, I believe you in YOUR usage situation, but for everybody else who has a job that takes 6 hours five days a week, it's not going to play nearly as much of a role as it does. What I'm saying is that your situation isn't the norm- it's the extreme.
Yes, electricity costs around 30cents here... And yes, I play around 10 hours a day. I even run a netbook most of the time besides this to have twitch running, checking mails and so on. And I know what I paid for my power before and now. I saved above 100€ after my contract of 2 years. Because I wasn't 10 hours all full power. But still 100€ of savings... Which means HALF of a new card. Just by savings! While all games still run fluid. So I see no sense in wasting power just for a few more frames... It's playable, it's fluid and it's saving my money. That's what I care about :)
First of all, please format better. Your whole comment is excruciatingly painful to look and your calculation is damn near impossible to follow. Secondly, you're calculating at full load. I highly doubt you're running your stuff at full load for 10 hours daily. Just leaving your computer on, without doing anything, is NOT full load. Unless you leave your machine on doing synthetic benchmarks, you're not going to produce a significant difference in power draw between the two cards, as idle power draw for both these cards is a lot less than this, much closer to 8 watts for the 1050 Ti and 16 for the 470. How much of that 10 hours daily is actually spent pushing a hard 3D application (modern triple A titles, or torture test synthetic benchmarks like Furmark or 3D Mark)? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you're actually gaming for 5 of those 10 hours you leave your machine on, with the machine idling the other five. Load: 75 Wh*5= 375Wh (.375kWh) Idle: 8Wh*5 = 40Wh (.04kWh) Total daily draw: 379Wh (.379kWh) Total daily cost @ $.30/kWh= $0.1137 Total annual cost @ $.30/kWh= $41.5005 Obviously, that's the 1050 Ti. The power draw on the 470 does scale linearly, so it costs twice as much in electricity. You're still only saving $41.5005 annually. It's not enough even after three years. Does electricity really cost you that much? I pay about $.17/kWh.
I give you a calculation now: 75 Watts = 10 hours means 750 Watts. 20 Hours means 1500 Watts. This means 1000 Watts here costs 30cent and I paid 45cent MORE money for the same 20 Hours. If I only let my stuff run for 10 Hours, which IS realistic, I come to 22,5cent MORE paid per day. 22,5cent * 365 days = 8212,5 cent. Means 82,12(5) € per year MORE paid for same gaming time hours... And in 2 years (where you usually upgrade cards again) I already saved up 164,25€. Just savings alone! And for this I nearly get a new card! :) JUST FROM THE SAVINGS! :D My area is around up to 200€ max for a card. So yeah, you see I save alot of money. Which I can put in hardware :3 You can re-calculate my calculation but I don't think I made a mistake :)
I agree with the overall sentiment, but the 470 and 1050ti are designed for different usage than workstation deployment or data center computation. End users for these two cards aren't going to be buying 10 of them to drop into a machine for use (well, maybe crypto miners, but those tend to favor AMD anyway). The end user this card is aimed at is the budget gamer, who is going to care about the best performance for his dollar from one or two of these cards a the most. If a user averages 4 hours of gaming daily for a whole year, he'll spend about $15 to power the 1050 Ti's 75 watt draw, and only $15 more to power the 470's 150 watt draw. Personally, I think the better overall performance is going to be worth the difference, but your mileage may vary from game to game. It's especially noteworthy that the 470 plays much better in DX12 and Vulkan titles (the two API's of the future) than the 1050 Ti does, and that performance lead is expected to grow as AMD drivers mature and nVidia starts to push their new product stack for next year. While statements like yours are true on a general scale, each product has a different value to each person. I prefer higher fidelity in graphics, and if I can get that from a product that costs me $220 up front and costs me $30 annually, versus a product that costs me $260 up front and costs me $15 annually, guess where I'm going to spend my money (spoiler alert: I've got an 8gb RX 480). Now, if I was shopping for one of these cards and the 1050 Ti had identical performance and price, I would go for it simply because less power draw- but it doesn't perform as well as a 470 does and the electrical savings aren't enough to get me personally consider it. Energy efficiency is very important, but in the budget/mainstream gaming field, it's not the end-all answer. If it was, we'd all be running intel atom gaming rigs with integrated graphics. Obviously, we don't do that.
Calling people idiots, just because they actually use their systems more intensely, is one of the worst and most stupid try's of insulting me, I've ever read so far. Thanks for being such a dick :) And no, it's not only a few dollars annually, idiot! With only the savings of one year, I can buy a NEW graphics card! FOR FREE! Just by power savings! And still my games run fluid! And that's ALL I care about! You think I'm not very far from mommy and daddy? Well, I'm 30 years old now and I live alone and pay my own power bills. And I'm not some sort of rich dickhead, that loves to bully others just for their efficiency decisions! Now get lost, stupid kid!
Unless you're one of the idiots that never turns their computer off, the power savings is so negligible. If you have to buy inferior tech to save a few dollars annually on your power bill, you probably shouldn't be spending money on such things in the first place, and you certainly aren't very far removed from mommy and daddy paying your power bill.
The higher quality and engineered card is always the one that can produce great sustained performance while using the LEAST energy possible . That applies to most anything in the electronic world. Energy efficiency is everything in these types of fields .
Can you repeat that i wasn't paying attention , thank you.
If this works, that's good aswell! :)
yeah u use a 75w to do 100%things but rx470 use 120w to do 140% things. How about to slow down the rx470 to do 100%things?
Nope. It's a fact. If you care for efficiency, then the 1050Ti won. This card brings fluid gameplay with much lower power consumption each hour. People who pay their own power bills and don't get them paid by mommy and daddy, actually care more about the costs :)
RX 470 Without any doubt
Rx470 destroyed the gtx 1050ti, say that the gtx 1050ti is better by rx470 using 120 watts is retarded thing
there is 0 difference in performance if cooling is the same, a GTX 1050 is a GTX 1050 if NOT factory overclocked(not an SE or Ti or whatever other version) you know, like an apple is an apple but an orange is not an apple..the dual fan coolers usually cool better and are less noisy, so they "in theory" will maintain their "boost" clock higher, if you take that boost clock away, they are still a GTX 1050(an apple is an apple) the single fan ones are nice in that they usually blow the heat out of the computer case instead of into i(hence so called blower style though not all single fan gpu are like this) so if you have a poor airflow computer case, the "blower style" which pushes its own heat out, is usually the better choice, but if you have good airflow, 9/10 you are best to go with the dual or triple fan cooled cards as they tend to be much better cooled, so therefore, "in theory" will cool better, be less noisy, and "live" longer, hot electronics die faster unless they are built to handle a very high heat, Nvidia is not known for overbuilding their components for a very high heat tolerance, heck often enough they underbuild/underspec but still overprice considering..anyways hope that answers the question.
people are constantly everywhere misquoting wattage figures even journalists and such...TDP is NOT WATTAGE...TDP is thermal design power or thermal dissipation power, this means simply how much heat the cooler attached must be able to handle to effectively displace heat..Nvidia has often enough and many times over undershot this number to appear much better then reality, that being said they did quite well with Pascal in that although they are pushing pretty much the same heat, they are much better power usage (not counting throttling cause of underspec cooling) When it comes to actual power required, AMD is a little more lenient in their ratings when at a "reference" card and gives somewhat higher +/- tolerance for power actually required and so forth (RX 48x and 47x were a little wonky from some board partners which is a shame) All such being said, RX 470 is the better performer simple as that, take more power so therefore will push more heat BUT you get better performance, whereas the 1060 and 480 trade performance back and forth with again the 1060 using a bit less power but average the RX 480 more oomph in AMD case especially when considering DX12 and Vulkan, they have more "under the hood" to be able to do more advanced stuff not gimmicky stuff (and not tricking/hacking the software through emulation) to make them "appear" faster then they are, nor running crazy high clock speeds to make up for the fact they chop so much away like Ngreeedia does (likely meaning there will be more failures(then normally expected, they have billions $ to hide this of course) you can only push electrons so fast before degradation sets in, no matter how fancy they claim their power circuitry is, if anything, it likely will mean overtime they will actually not be able to keep anywhere close to that clock speed as they have been damaged over time) TDP is NOT power required, it is cooling needed, power required is a general thing 75w from the pci-e slot 75w from a 6pin connector 150w from an 8 pin though there is allowed some variance by ~15w and still stay in the "acceptable" range. So to put it lightly, if a card requires 6 pin with the motherboard pci-e slot that means the card is ABLE TO use up to 150w +/- and be within "spec" if there is NO 6 pin or 8 pin extra for power it is only able to get 75w-90w from the socket itself, go out of spec for too long, or have a bad design, it will cause things to break, melt, die, short out other things. Ngreedia tried to make the biggest stink about RX 4xx being out of spec, and yet they themselves have had graphics cards and even motherboards up and die again and again for this very reason...they are green cause they are "the way we play games with you" ^.^
RX470 performance wise and GTX1050Ti power consumption wise. GTX1050Ti has enough power for fluid gameplay with only 75 Watts usage. While RX470 has more gaming power but needs 120 Watts power.
Do U Use 1050ti Single (Fan) Or Dual (Fan) Cause The Performance is different.
The 470 cost 10 more on newegg at cheapest. Wow Nvidia knows how to over price that's for sure. Did you see the prebuilts up there the 1050 ti pc cost 300 more LOL TO THE MAX extreme. Nvidia the green stands for money or weed take your pick.
comments powered by Disqus