The new 3GB version of the GeForce GTX 1050 comes in the town which contains new budget as well. The boy in this is like a strange animal.
In the last version of DDR4 of the GT 1030 there is a huge failure and terribly mishandling the product that shouldn’t exist. It’s supposed to go one of the worst graphics cards came in the history. We don’t even want to imagine that GTX 1050 3GB version is totally different from the last one and not even bad at all. We purchased GT 1030 to memory because it is an unusual strange release and little bit mishandling.
The only one version of the GTX 1050 (codenamed GP107-300), which came with a 2GB memory buffer, and which was released in May 2018. That is like the same GPU, which we experienced first time on retail since October 2016. But in May Nvidia slightly updated the GTX 1050 page on their websites including a 3Gb model. This model was designed between 2GB 1050 and 4GB 1050 Ti. It is more complicated than the previous one.
The 3GB 1050 is not slightly 1050 because it has an extra gigabyte of VRAM. As an alternative, it features 768 CUDA cores but on a lower 96-bit memory bus and this is just because of change in the backend configuration. It is a GTX 1050 Ti which contains a gigabyte less VRAM.
With of these abilities, the L2 cache capacity has been decreased from 1MB to 768KB. Nvidia is clocking the cores higher to pay damages, but we admired that in some situations this won’t help overcome the 25 percent reduction in memory bandwidth, ROPs, and cache.
Now the question is why Nvidia is trying to sell a 3GB version of the GTX 1050 which will never perform like 1050, which has an extra gigabyte of VRAM?
The specs which we are expecting that significant part will be laying between 2GB 1050 and 1050 Ti, but there will be no confusion that it is actually slower than even 2GB 1050. The most apparent clarification is that it has a stockpile of defective GP107 dies that had one faulty memory controller. That’s why Nvidia is trying to save those parts by creating the 3GB 1050. It is quite odd to see this so late in a product cycle, but that’s not the big issue.