In the sub-$200 GPU range, price to performance
Howdy howdy guys, ponchato here, and today
we’ll be taking a look at two of those GPUs
and comparing their price to performance:
AMD’s RX 560 and NVIDIA’s GTX 1050.
Released in October of 2016, the GTX 1050
started at a launch price of $109 USD.
Its core frequency is 1354MHz with 640 shaders,
it has 2GB of GDDR5 memory running at 1752MHz,
and is rated for 1862 GFLOPS of floating point
With a TDP of 75W, it doesn’t require an
extra PCIe power connector.
The specific model we’re looking at here
is the MSI GTX 1050 2GT OC.
From team red we have the RX 560.
Released about 6 months later in April of
2017, the 560 launched at a price of only
Its core runs at 1175MHz with 1024 shaders,
has 4GB of GDDR5 memory running at 1750MHz,
and is rated for 2611 GFLOPS of floating point
Like the GTX 1050, it has a TDP of 75W which
means it doesn’t require an extra PCIe power
This model here is the RX 560 Aero ITX from
Both cards have dual slot coolers and both
cards are equipped with HDMI, DVI, and DisplayPort
The test setup today is my i5-7500 build with
8GB of DDR4-2400 memory.
First up is Battlefield 1.
On low settings, the GTX 1050 pretty effectively
crushed the 560; almost 25% faster on average
and lows were 40-60% higher.
On medium the gap closes with the 560 only
trailing by about 14%, and on ultra settings
the gap between them was only about 10%.
This was most likely due to the 560 having
twice as much VRAM, which comes in handy once
the texture and anti-aliasing settings start
to get bumped up.
Next we’ll look at CSGO.
On low and medium settings, the 1050 led in
average FPS by about 12%.
The lows weren’t so close; on low settings
the GTX 1050 led in 1% and 0.1% lows by close
to 60%, and on medium settings that lead increased.
1% lows on medium were 75% higher with the
1050 and 0.1% lows were more than double those
of the RX 560.
On high settings, the 560 trailed in average
FPS by a whopping 40%, while its lows were
again close to 50% lower than the GTX 1050’s.
Unlike in Battlefield 1, turning up the graphics
settings here actually increased the performance
Third in line is Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.
Performance is very similar across the board:
no more than 3FPS separate the RX 560 from
the GTX 1050 all the way from low settings
up to ultra.
I would have thought the RX 560’s extra
2GB of VRAM, twice that of the 1050’s, would
make a bigger difference in a game like this
with all its high resolution textures and
hefty anti-aliasing on higher settings, but
it appears both cards run almost identically.
Next up, GTA 5.
For the first time, the RX 560 gets a win…
at least on low settings.
Because of the stuttering glitch that the
1050 suffers from on low settings, the RX
560 comes out well ahead.
Average FPS hits 129 frames per second while
lows barely dip below 80.
On medium, the 560’s lead vanishes: the
1050 was 27% faster on average with about
a 20% lead in 1% lows.
On high settings, the 1050 ran about 20% faster
average FPS but lows were closer to the 560’s:
12% faster 1% lows but 18% slower 0.1% lows.
Just Cause 3 is up next.
Oddly enough, despite its usual preference
for NVIDIA GPUs, results from JC3 were very
On low and medium settings, the 1050 only
led average FPS by about 10%, while on high
settings the averages were nearly identical.
Lows were likewise similar across the board;
no more than 7FPS difference, but in most
cases only 3 frames per second difference
Overwatch comes next.
On low settings, the 1050 absolutely smears
the RX 560; 41% faster average, 72% faster
1% lows, and a 245% lead in 0.1% lows.
On high settings, the two cards come much
closer together: only a 6% difference in average
FPS, identical 1% lows, and the 560 about
20% faster in 0.1% lows.
On epic settings, the 1050’s lead comes
28% faster average, 24% faster 1% lows, and
8% faster 0.1% lows.
In Overwatch, the GTX 1050 is the clear winner.
Seventh on the list is PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds
Some of these results were… a bit wonky.
On low settings, the 1050 comes out well ahead
with a 60% lead in average FPS while maintaining
On medium settings, the 1050 again leads with
60% higher average FPS and again, similar
On ultra, however, things go south.
Though the 1050 does come out ahead in average
FPS, it falls far below the 560 in lows, dipping
as far down as 8FPS while the 560 never dropped
My guess is, like in Battlefield 1, the 560’s
extra 2GB of memory come into play here as
the 1050 hit its limit.
Finally we’ll look at Rocket League.
From the minimum settings to maxed out, the
GTX 1050 led by around 22% in average FPS.
The difference in lows varied as high as 245%,
with the 1050 no less than 30% faster than
the RX 560 in all cases.
That extra VRAM didn’t seem to help much
here, and the 1050 comes out ahead.
Now we’ll look at a combined average of
esports and non-esports titles for the two
First up, the esports average.
These numbers are from the combined results
of CSGO, Overwatch, and Rocket League.
On low settings between the average, 1%, and
0.1% frame rates, the 1050 led by 20%, 57%,
and 210% respectively.
On medium settings that lead continues with
a 15% lead in average FPS, 32% lead in 1%
lows, and 37% lead in 0.1% lows.
Similarly on high settings, the 1050 led the
RX 560 in average FPS by 33%, 1% lows by 47%,
and 0.1% lows by 50%.
There’s really not much of a competition
Next we’ll look at the combined average
for non-esports titles.
These numbers come from Battlefield 1, Deus
Ex: Mankind Divided, GTA 5, Just Cause 3,
Unlike with the esports titles, here the 560
isn’t completely blown out of the water
by the 1050.
On low settings, the 1050 only leads by 13%
On medium settings the 1050 leads by 22% in
the average, and on high the difference between
them is only 10%.
The 1050 still comes out ahead, but it’s
not such a beat down as in the esports titles,
likely due to 1050’s 2GB of memory versus
the RX 560’s 4GB.
Next we’ll look at power consumption and
As always I need to mention that basically
every graphics card comes with a different
cooler so looking at temperatures for two
different cards isn’t exactly a like-for-like
comparison, but it will give you a rough estimate
of where they sit.
Temperatures were measured in a room at 24C,
power measurements were taken at the wall
for the entire test setup, and temperatures
were allowed to stabilize for 15 minutes before
recording both the stress and idle results.
At idle the RX 560 leveled off at 37C and
the system drew 42W.
The GTX 1050, on the other hand, idled at
31C and only drew 32W from the wall – something
about the 1050’s power management allows
it to use almost no power when it’s at idle.
The 6 degree difference in temperature is
due to the 1050 having a BIOS-enforced minimum
fan speed of 45%, which the RX 560 does not.
Under load with Unigine’s Valley benchmark
the 560 topped out at 72C and drew 101W from
The GTX 1050 hit a slightly higher 76C and
drew 106W from the wall.
Though there is a measurable difference in
temperature and power, these results pretty
much confirm what we already knew: the 560
and 1050 both have a TDP of 75W and they really
aren’t going to draw much more power than
that, nor produce more heat.
From a subjective standpoint, neither card
was louder nor quieter than the other, and
neither one was really audible among the other
noise sources in the case.
Now, arguably, the most important aspect of
budget GPUs: performance per dollar.
When you only have $130 for an upgrade or
you can only upgrade once in a long while,
this is the metric you should weigh most heavily.
These results come from the combined average
and 1% lows for all 8 games at medium settings,
divided by the current market price for the
cards when the video is uploaded.
Both the 1050 and 560 are going for more than
their MSRP right now: 1050s run about $120
USD at the moment and 560s are available for
These are the results.
In a few words, total blowout.
The 560 is running about 30% over its launch
price which puts it at a price point above
the 1050, in spite of the fact that the 560
trails the 1050 in performance by about 20%.
Altogether that means the 1050 will get you
about 25% more FPS per dollar than a 560,
at least until (or if) prices every go back
I can only assume that the 560’s price is
inflated due to cryptocurrency mining and
in the context of gaming, that means you’ll
be getting a raw deal if you go with a 560
over a 1050.
It’s more expensive, and noticeably slower.
On top of that, there really isn’t any outside
benefit to picking the 560; both cards use
about the same power, make about the same
noise, have the same display connectors, and
neither one requires a PCIe power connector.
If you’re in the market for a graphics card
around $120, unless you’re doing some kind
of compute work that absolutely requires an
AMD GPU (of which I don’t know any), you’ll
be much better served both in cost and in
performance by a GTX 1050 from NVIDIA.
Links to purchase the GTX 1050 and RX 560
are in the description below.
If you want to get notified of new videos
as soon as they’re up, hit subscribe then
click the bell icon to enable notifications.
So guys if you liked this video hit the like
button, if you want to see more hit subscribe,
and if you have any questions about these
graphics cards or the benchmarks, leave them
in the comments below.
Thanks for watching, I hope I helped, and
I’ll see you in the next video.