EVGA minds the gap with two GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB cards

Nvidia quietly surfaced the 3 GB version of its popular mainstream gaming GeForce GTX 1050 graphics card over a month ago, but cards still haven't reached retailers. To date, Gigabyte is the only major card maker we've seen with cards using the green graphics team's third desktop GTX 1050 family member, and now EVGA enters the fray with a pair of GTX 1050 3 GB cards.

The GeForce GTX 1050 3 GB is kind of an odd duck, getting more memory and higher 1392 MHz base and 1518 MHz boost clocks when compared to the standard desktop GTX 1050 2 GB, but it still has to make do with a 96-bit-wide memory bus that lost 32 seats somewhere along the way. EVGA's GeForce GTX 1050 Gaming 03G sticks to the aforementioned reference clocks, but the company's GeForce GTX 1050 SC Gaming 03G pumps the base clock up to 1455 MHz and the boost clock to 1569 MHz. Both cards use the same 7008 MT/s GDDR5 memory.

The two cards share more than the same memory setup—they also both wear the same single-fan ACX 2.0 cooling setup. The common cooler means both dual-slot cards measure 5.7″ long (14.5 cm) and 4.4″ wide (11.1 cm). We imagine the two identically-cooled cards probably run at nearly the same clocks under real world workloads despite their specs page differences, thanks to Nvidia's GPU Boost 3.0 sorcery.

The complement of display outputs on these cards includes a DVI connector, an HDMI connector, and a full-size DisplayPort. The only illumination from the cards will come from the monitor, as no decorative LEDs are part of the deal, RGB or otherwise. Buyers will need to provide a PC running Windows 7 or newer with a free PCIe x16 slot and at least a 300 W power supply. That PSU doesn't need to have any of those fancy-pants PCIe power connectors, though.

EVGA didn't say when the two cards will hit shelves, but the company made it pretty clear that it expects $160 in exchange for a GeForce GTX 1050 Gaming 03G and $170 for the hotter-clocked GeForce GTX 1050 SC Gaming 03G. The manufacturer backs the cards with a three-year warranty.

Comments closed
    • Voldenuit
    • 1 year ago

    When returned GPU cores are in greater supply than RAM…

    • DPete27
    • 1 year ago

    Speaking of which. TR never reviewed the GTX1050Ti aside from their [url=https://techreport.com/news/30867/in-the-lab-evga-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-superclocked-graphics-card<]"In the Lab"[/url<] teaser.

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    I wonder when it’ll be a good time to buy RAM and graphics cards again. They probably won’t coincide so you’ll either get RAM at good prices while graphics chip prices are still off the charts or vice versa, and by the time the other one also normalizes the other one would’ve shot up again.

    • Srsly_Bro
    • 1 year ago

    I love my little 1050ti SC. I can run the memory +500 and the temps are so low. If I had more pcie slots, I’d get one of these.

    • albundy
    • 1 year ago

    meh. low end low budget cards with a chip from i dont how many years ago at exorbitant prices. what could go wrong?

    • sweatshopking
    • 1 year ago

    What they actually need is a 1040. The gap between the 1030 and the 1050 is massive.

    • Amien
    • 1 year ago

    This really should have a different name as it’s clearly not the same product.

      • Leader952
      • 1 year ago

      You mean like the 3GB clearly shown on the retail packages that you seem unable to see.

        • Amien
        • 1 year ago

        My problem is that the memory isn’t the only thing that’s changed.

        @DPete27

        I was under the impression that greater bandwidth is needed to make use of more memory. Is that not applicable here? Agreed that this naming thing doesn’t seem as bad as some of the other recent ones (1060,1030,560 etc.). I just don’t like it. Does this have something to do with the size of available memory modules?

          • K-L-Waster
          • 1 year ago

          Not sure what you’d change though — the GTX 1050 refers to the GPU chip, which is still correct.

          I suppose they could call it the GTX 1045 or something…

      • DPete27
      • 1 year ago

      The GTX 1050 3GB generally outperforms the 2GB version. Both Nvidia and AMD have DEFINITELY done worse naming tricks than this, so I’m inclined to let this conservative naming choice slide.

    • jokinin
    • 1 year ago

    At least they do have GDDR5, not like the new GT1030 with DDR4, which is sold almost at the same price as the GDDR5 version and has much lower performance. I think nvidia is tricking their costumers in this case.

      • psuedonymous
      • 1 year ago

      All the 1030 DDR4 variant cards I’ve seen on sale have had either “DDR4”, “D4” and/or (inexplicable) “GDDR4” in the product name. So far, only an offering from MSI has used the ‘cryptic’ “D4” without adding “DDR4” in the product name, though al have had it in the product description.

        • jokinin
        • 1 year ago

        Yes, you’re on reason, and most of them are well labeled, but I’ve seen DDR4 an GDDR5 versions with only 5 euro difference. How can nvidia justify that, when performance difference is very big? I can’t quite understand it, and for not so well informed people, they can end up buying a product quite inferior for almost the price of a better one.

          • psuedonymous
          • 1 year ago

          [quote<]How can nvidia justify that, when performance difference is very big?[/quote<]You;re asking the wrong company. Go ask the AIB partners who build the cards, or the retailers who price them. The 'reason' is probably that DDR4 price rose to the point that it isn't all that much cheaper than GDDR5 during the development cycle, but by the time it had there was little reason [i<]not[/i<] to release the cards that had been designed and manufactured.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 1 year ago

      On the very low end it’s almost impossible to figure out what’s the fastest configuration. 64-bit GDDR5 cards have more bandwidth than 128-bit DDR3, because the RAM is clocked so much faster, but there are more cycles of latency. I have almost no idea which is better.

        • jokinin
        • 1 year ago

        DDR3 is used on low end GT730, and it is 64 bit memory bus mostly. Myself I bought a GT730 2GB DDR3 64 bit memory bus, and it only has 14.4GB/s memory bandwith when the GDDR5 version has almost the triple, and much better performance.
        Those cards are still available to buy.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 1 year ago

          Oh man. 64-bit DDR3 is like the worst of both worlds right there.

      • Demetri
      • 1 year ago

      It’s pretty amazing how much worse the DDR4 version is:

      [url<]https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3330-gt-1030-ddr4-vs-gt-1030-gddr5-benchmark-worst-graphics-card-2018[/url<]

        • jokinin
        • 1 year ago

        True, and I think they should be called a different name, they’re not the same products, and performance delta is very big as you point.

        • Zizy
        • 1 year ago

        Whoa.
        1030 might be questionable value vs 2200G/2400G … but this DDR4 version is an outright scam.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 1 year ago

        Wowza. That’s horrible.

      • Chrispy_
      • 1 year ago

      The sad thing about the DDR4 variants is that they really are unnecessarily awful for the sake of saving the manufacturer the most money.

      Common DDR4 speeds these days are 2400MHz-3200MHz yet the new GT1030 comes with 2100MHz RAM.

      Here was me thinking that 2133MHz DDR4 was the slowest stuff ever made, but Nvidia found a way to make it worse.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This