GTX 960 vs GTX 1050 – which graphics card is better to choose?

From an aesthetic point of view, both cards can not be called outstanding. The design here is as simple as possible, devoid of obvious gaming "chips" and any highlights, so these video cards will be invisible inside the case with a transparent wall. If you look at the simplicity and ease of installation, it is worth noting a few facts. First, both models take up a couple of slots. Secondly, EVGA GeForce GTX 960 noticeably larger due to the use of a long board and two turntables in the cooling system.

Against her background Palit GeForce GTX 1050 Ti looks like a compact kid, so it will easily fit into a case of any size, which can be an important point when upgrading an old PC and wanting to save money on buying a new, more spacious case.

Even an inexperienced user understands that the compared graphics adapters belong to different generations of the GeForce line. The GTX 960 chip is a 28nm Maxwell microarchitecture, while the GTX 1050 is based on the more efficient and power-hungry 14nm Pascal architecture. Hence the increase in the number of transistors: 3.3 million versus 2.94 million for the 960th chip.On the other hand, in terms of the number of texture units and stream processors, the older gtx 960 is in the lead, which gives a slight advantage in some graphic applications, although the performance increase will not exceed 7-8%. In addition, on the side Palit GeForce GTX 1050 double the amount of video memory, which is especially noticeable in dynamic games, where EVGA GeForce GTX 960 will give FPS drawdowns.

Let's move on to the most delicious, tests. As you can see from the picture above, in the popular news of recent years, the video card based on the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti chip behaves slightly better than the older GTX 960, although the increase is not so noticeable. It should be noted that in general, both graphics adapters are characterized by a low level of FPS in most games, and this is at medium graphics settings, as well as FullHD resolution. Attempts to raise the resolution to 2K or increase the settings will lead to an even sadder picture.

But even when the graphics settings are reduced to the very bottom, the picture as a whole does not change - the more recent GTX 1050 chip shows slightly better results, even here more memory plays a role. However, there are exceptions, for example, in such popular games as PUBG, Fornite, Forza Horizon 4, Grand Theft Auto V and Overwatch, a GTX 960-based video card can not only not be inferior in FPS, but even take the lead.And yet the winner in this nomination will be considered the card Palit GeForce GTX 1050 Ti StormX, which demonstrates a higher average level of gaming performance.

It was already mentioned above that due to the larger number of processing cores and texture units, the video card EVGA GeForce GTX 960 ACX may perform better in some tasks related to the processing of graphic data. This is confirmed by a picture with test results in various software, where Palit GeForce GTX 1050 Ti StormX a noticeable advantage only in the field of cryptocurrency mining and working with AI used to identify faces, but such tasks require memory, which the GTX 1050 has more. Thus, if you need a graphics adapter not for games, but mostly for processing photos or any other graphic content, then you should give preference to a card based on the 960th chip.

Both compared cards are connected to the motherboard via the PCI-E 3.0 interface and are capable of displaying a picture in resolution up to 4K (4096x2160 pixels). But here we immediately highlight the model from EVGA, which received support for SLI technology, i.e. it is possible to combine a pair of graphics adapters, significantly raising the performance of your PC.

Besides, EVGA GeForce GTX 960 ACX it also wins in terms of the number of monitors that can be connected to the video card at the same time - there are already five video outputs, but only four are allowed to be used at a time. However, this is more than three monitors Palit GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. A small stone in the garden brainchild of EVGA - the need for additional power through an 8-pin cable. But we still give the burden of the leader in this nomination to the GTX 960 chip for a larger number of video outputs and SLI support.

The transition to a new generation has a positive impact not only on gaming capabilities, but also on energy efficiency. In this confrontation GTX 1050 vs GTX 960, the former has an obvious advantage: the 14-nanometer process technology has reduced power consumption, which, coupled with the absence of the need for additional power, makes it possible to use less powerful power supplies, so you can save on this point of upgrading an old PC.

Despite the difference in generations and the amount of available video memory, alas, there is no significant difference in price between these video cards. EVGA GeForce GTX 960 ACX 2.0 will cost on average only a couple of thousand cheaper, and the difference will be about the same in the secondary market, so the expediency of saving here is relevant only if the budget is very limited or if you need to buy a second card in the kit to the existing one in order to use the SLI capabilities.

With a very minimal margin due to the victory in one additional nomination, a more recent chip earns a gold medal in the confrontation between GTX 960 vs GTX 1050. This is partly natural, because it is better in games, more energy efficient, and the video card itself Palit GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is more compact and offers support for more recent versions of OpenGL and Vulcan. But a slight advantage is followed by an overpayment upon purchase, which for some users is a very fat minus. However, we advise you to close your eyes to these couple of extra thousand, by today's standards, not so much for the opportunity to get an increase in FPS in games.

If u recommend chip GTX 960, then we note that it is quite good in MOBA games, such as Dota 2 or League Of Legends, but in dynamic shooters it will frustrate with regular freezes of the picture - after all, 2 GB of video memory is too small for rapid rendering of textures and even more computational nuclei.