OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£130VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):75 W

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 13 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
6.3/10

Overall score

Score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components

40%

3.9

Technical score

25%

8.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

8.6

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 84% of graphics cards
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 54%
3.9

Technical score

Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

2.4

Memory

12%

8.5

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

5.5

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 94%
8.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 69% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

8.7

Popularity

Grades by review (13)
12 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 69%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
  • msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
msi-geforce-gtx-1050-ti
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Based on 11 · 1

It runs cool, quiet and well clocked, yet reviewers find the benchmark results and overclocking headroom disappointing.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Based on 198 owners sharing their experience in online comments

77%positive11%mixed12%negative

Owners value its capable, efficient gaming and lasting usefulness, while newer games often need reduced settings.

What owners dislike

  • Often needs lower settings, shadows turned down, or a frame-rate cap to play newer demanding games smoothly at 1080p.14
  • Struggles with the newest and most demanding games, often dropping to around 20 to 40 fps unless settings are cut heavily.13

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Technical score
Technical score
3.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components:

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

2.4

Memory

12%

8.5

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

5.5

Connectivity

3.9
Reviews score
8.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 93.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
6,350 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 6,350 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 91.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,659 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,659 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 92.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.14 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.14 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 93.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
112.1 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 112.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 93.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,008 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,008 MHz, which is slower than that of 89.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
75 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 75 W, which is lower than that of 90.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
75 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 75 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
75 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 75 W, which is lower than that of 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
229x 131x 39 mm
Length
229 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 229 mm long, which is shorter than 81.1% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Height
131 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 131 mm tall, which is taller than 62.4% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.9% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
527 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 527 g, which is lighter than 89.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 4x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (7,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    7,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 53.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (229 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    229 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (13)
    12 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 13.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 69% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.7

    Popularity

    Grades by review (13)
    12 reviews: 8 with a printed score, 4 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.2 vs 7.2
  • 4x cheaper
    MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is cheaper than the average graphics card (£130 vs £520).
    £130 vs £520
  • 4x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (7,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    7,008 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 55.1% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (132 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    132 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 75% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (3 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    3 W vs 12 W
  • 11 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (26 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    26 °C vs 37 °C
  • 8.4 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (27 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    27 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 65.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 53.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (229 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    229 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 48% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (527 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    527 g vs 1,014 g
  • 41.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,455 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,455 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • 82.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (66.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    66.82 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 41.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,455 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,455 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 34 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (6 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    6 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 82.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (66.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    66.82 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 32.8% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,290 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,290 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 72.4% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (44.5 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    44.54 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 90.5% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.14 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 7 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2016 vs 2023).
    October 2016
    2016 vs 2023
  • 71.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (6,350 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    6,350 points vs 22,638 points
  • 83.1% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 85.4% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.07 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 78% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,659 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,659 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 3,584 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (768 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    768 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 75% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (112.1 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    112.1 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 63.1% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,008 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 62.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (48 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    48 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Lower VRS tier
    This graphics card supports a lower VRS tier than the average graphics card (Tier 1 vs Tier 2).
    Tier 1 vs Tier 2
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 85.6% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (3,300 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    3,300 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (3 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    3 vs 6
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 6 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (131 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    131 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
PC Centric
≈ estimated
12/12/2016
Hands-on review · benchmarks against RX 460 and RX 480
Verdict
MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a strong pick for 1080p gaming at a reasonable price, though the RX 480 offers more value.
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
au.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
31/12/2016
Lab test · Entry-level 1080p card
Verdict
The MSI GTX 1050 Ti 4G OC is a cool, quiet card for 1080p gaming that needs no power connector, though it barely overclocks past its factory boost.
9.0
lanoc.org
≈ estimated
28/10/2016
Lab test · Large dual-fan cooler
Verdict
The MSI GTX 1050 Ti Gaming X 4G runs nearly silent and cool for Full HD gaming, but its bigger cooler may not fit smaller cases.
7.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
16/12/2016
Lab test · Near-stock 1050 Ti
Verdict
The MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4G OC runs cool and quiet at 1080p and needs no extra power plug, but it overclocks little past its factory boost.
7.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
30/12/2016
Lab test · Compact 1080p card
Verdict
The MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4G OC suits 1080p players who want a cool, quiet card with no power plug, though it won't overclock far past factory speed.
7.0
me.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
31/12/2016
Lab test · Full HD gaming
Verdict
The MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4G OC is a cool, quiet card that handles Full HD gaming without a power connector, but gains little from overclocking.
8.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
25/10/2016
Lab test · Short-board card
Verdict
The MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4G fits small cases and offers HDR-ready outputs, but performs on par with the GTX 960 and trails the RX 470.
8.0
trustedreviews.com
✓ explicit
08/03/2019
Lab test · Full HD gaming
Verdict
The Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti handles most games at Full HD, drawing its power from the PCIe slot, though demanding titles need Medium settings.
8.6
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
24/01/2018
Lab test · Twin Frozr cooling
Verdict
The MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gaming X 4G is a fast, quiet card with Twin Frozr cooling, though its memory overclock barely matters.
9.0
notebookcheck.com
≈ estimated
25/10/2016
Lab test · Compact ITX card
Verdict
The MSI GTX 1050 Ti 4G is a compact, efficient card for small cases, matching the older GTX 960 in synthetic tests but well behind the GTX 1060.
8.1
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
30 de noviembre de 2016
Lab test · Quiet dual-fan cooler
Verdict
The MSI GTX 1050 Ti Gaming X is a quiet, cool card that runs any game at Full HD, though its missing backplate and extra power plug are drawbacks.
8.0
gamingtoday.it
≈ estimated
17/03/2019
Hands-on test · Compact ITX card
Verdict
The MSI GTX 1050 Ti Aero ITX 4G OC is a small, quiet card that runs demanding games at Full HD on Ultra, but hovers near 30 FPS.
8.0
tweakers.net
✓ explicit
22/11/2016
Hands-on test · Budget card
Verdict
The MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a good budget card for 1080p gaming that can run on a PicoPSU, but it is too slow for 4K.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

  • Excellent value for 1080p gaming on a budget
  • Low power consumption (75W), often requiring no external power connector
  • Extremely quiet operation, especially with MSI's Zero Frozr fan technology
  • Effective cooling performance, keeping temperatures low under load
  • Compact and easy to install in older or small-form-factor PCs
  • Consistent performance in popular eSports titles like Fortnite and CS:GO

What customers don't like about MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

  • Struggles with modern AAA titles at high settings (performance is 'hit or miss' in 2025)
  • Limited overclocking potential beyond factory settings
  • Older architecture (Pascal) lacks modern features like ray tracing
  • Price is often inflated compared to more powerful newer alternatives on the used market
  • Abbreviated port selection (single DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort) compared to higher-end models
  • Not suitable for high-end VR or gaming above 1080p resolution

Verdict

The MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is a budget-friendly graphics card built on NVIDIA's 14nm Pascal architecture, featuring 768 CUDA cores and 4GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with a 112.1 GB/s bandwidth. Core models like the Gaming X variant offer clock speeds up to 1493 MHz in OC mode, supported by a 75W TDP and MSI's signature Twin Frozr VI thermal design with dual Torx 2.0 fans for efficient, silent cooling. Key advantages include its excellent 1080p gaming performance for eSports titles, high energy efficiency, and a compact form factor that often requires no additional PCIe power connectors, making it ideal for upgrading older systems. However, its 4GB VRAM acts as a bottleneck for modern AAA titles at higher settings, it lack VR readiness, and it is now significantly outperformed by newer entry-level generations.

Compare MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found