GPU specifications and clock speed are distinct aspects of a graphics card's performance.
GPU specifications and clock speed are distinct aspects of a graphics card's performance.
I have a 1050Ti that I've overclocked, and it performs well with stable speeds around 1963mhz. My RAM is a 4GB card. I'm planning to upgrade soon to a GTX 1060 with 6GB of memory. I'm curious about the actual impact of clock speed differences between these cards, especially if my 1050Ti runs smoothly near 2000mhz. If I push it to 2100mhz, which is the stable setting for the 1060, what advantages do I gain beyond the extra 2GB of RAM? Why does the 1060 feel more expensive and better than the 1050Ti when the clock speeds aren't that different?
maths is fundamentally accurate, and gaming is using CUDA cores as parallel processors that handle all the tasks in the GPU (the latest Nvidia models have slight differences). A 900 series CUDA core will perform worse than a 1000 series but better than a 700 series. Comparing across generations isn't possible, but you can compare within the same generation.
The benefit you could get is the 1060 6gb will be almost 50% better performance and really, performance is the only thing that matters, not the clocks or any spec. I'd suggest staying away from the spec sheet when you don't know what you are looking at. If you want to learn there is a lot more than clocks to the performance equation. The more obvious ones just off the spec sheet is cuda cores and memory bit width.
But also going from a 1050ti to a 1060 is a waste of money. While it is a noticeable increase, it's not worth the money. If you are selling the 1050ti to make up the difference, then that could help but it depends how much you'd get for it.
I don't think it's a waste of money. The €500 for a 1070Ti and another €500 for a 1440p display seem like extra costs that could be better used elsewhere, especially since I already have enough for 1080p gaming with a 1060 6GB GPU. The upgrade might not really improve performance as much as claimed, so it's worth questioning whether it's worth the investment. If it isn't, then my main concern remains unchanged. What makes the difference?
The cuda cores count varies between models, with the 1060 offering nearly double the 1050 Ti's 768 cores. These components handle the workload at the frequency you've set to. Despite my strong dislike for this site, GPUboss provides a useful comparison summary here: http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-1060...TX-1050-Ti
The card features a fixed number of CUDA cores, each operating at a specific clock rate, and this directly influences gaming performance. Is this important for gaming or just related to GPU rendering? I wasn’t sure what CUDA’s main purpose was. Let’s try some random calculations.
768 cores × 2000 MHz = 1,536,000
1280 cores × 2100 MHz = 2,688,000
That suggests a roughly 60% boost based only on clock speed and overclocking, not counting the extra 2GB of memory or memory overclocking.
maths is fundamentally accurate, and gaming is using CUDA cores as parallel processors that handle all the tasks in the GPU (the latest Nvidia models have slight differences). A 900 series CUDA core will perform worse than a 1000 series but better than a 700 series. Comparing across generations isn't possible, but you can compare within the same generation.
I mentioned cores and memory width as the most apparent factors. But the spec sheet really doesn't add value like doing the calculations. It's not just about the number of cores and clock speeds. Cores don't grow as efficiently, which explains why you only see a 50% improvement. They also behave differently from GPUs due to architectural and efficiency reasons. Performance per core hasn't consistently improved with each generation, although the last three have. It's more complex than just math, which is why real-world benchmarks perform better. You don't need to assume 1+1 equals 2. When a benchmark claims the result is 5 because it simplified the numbers, actual performance matters more than the figures on the sheet.
It's easier to grasp when I see benchmarks showing the card operates at 2000mhz and 3000MB, which matches what my 1050Ti does—so that data doesn't really matter. Checking just FPS doesn't clarify why or how much better the card performs.