Gtx 1050 vs amd radeon rx 560: AMD Radeon RX 560 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050: What is the difference?

AMD Radeon RX 560 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050: What is the difference?

37points

AMD Radeon RX 560

41points

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

54 facts in comparison

AMD Radeon RX 560

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Why is AMD Radeon RX 560 better than Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050?

0.87 TFLOPS higher floating-point performance?
2.6 TFLOPSvs1.73 TFLOPS
2x more VRAM?
4GBvs2GB
8.74 GTexels/s higher texture rate?
81.6 GTexels/svs72.86 GTexels/s
256 more shading units?
1024vs768
Supports multi-display technology?
16 more texture mapping units (TMUs)?
64vs48

Why is Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 better than AMD Radeon RX 560?

217MHz faster GPU clock speed?
1392MHzvs1175MHz
16.03 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
36. 43 GPixel/svs20.4 GPixel/s
243MHz faster GPU turbo speed?
1518MHzvs1275MHz
300million more transistors?
3300 millionvs3000 million
1 newer version of OpenCL?
3vs2
8 more render output units (ROPs)?
24vs16
Has Double Precision Floating Point (DPFP)?
25.3mm narrower?
144.7mmvs170mm

Which are the most popular comparisons?

AMD Radeon RX 560

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop

AMD Radeon RX 560

AMD Radeon RX 550

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

AMD Radeon RX Vega 8

AMD Radeon RX 560

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1650 OC

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

AMD Radeon RX 550

AMD Radeon RX 560

Nvidia GeForce GTX 960

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650

AMD Radeon RX 560

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

AMD Radeon Vega 8

AMD Radeon RX 560

AMD Radeon RX 580

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce MX330

AMD Radeon RX 560

AMD Radeon RX 470

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce MX350 Laptop

AMD Radeon RX 560

AMD Radeon RX 570

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce MX150

AMD Radeon RX 560

AMD Radeon Vega 8

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce 940MX

Price comparison

User reviews

Overall Rating

AMD Radeon RX 560

2 User reviews

AMD Radeon RX 560

9. 0/10

2 User reviews

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

2 User reviews

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

6.0/10

2 User reviews

Features

Value for money

10.0/10

2 votes

6.5/10

2 votes

Gaming

9.0/10

2 votes

6.0/10

2 votes

Performance

9.0/10

2 votes

6.0/10

2 votes

Fan noise

5.5/10

2 votes

10.0/10

2 votes

Reliability

10.0/10

2 votes

6.0/10

2 votes

Performance

1.GPU clock speed

1175MHz

1392MHz

The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

2.GPU turbo

1275MHz

1518MHz

When the GPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.

3. pixel rate

20.4 GPixel/s

36.43 GPixel/s

The number of pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

4.floating-point performance

2.6 TFLOPS

1.73 TFLOPS

Floating-point performance is a measurement of the raw processing power of the GPU.

5.texture rate

81.6 GTexels/s

72.86 GTexels/s

The number of textured pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

6.GPU memory speed

1750MHz

1752MHz

The memory clock speed is one aspect that determines the memory bandwidth.

7.shading units

Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors within the graphics card that are responsible for processing different aspects of the image.

8.texture mapping units (TMUs)

TMUs take textures and map them to the geometry of a 3D scene. More TMUs will typically mean that texture information is processed faster.

9.render output units (ROPs)

The ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, writing the final pixel data to memory and carrying out other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the look of graphics.

Memory

1.effective memory speed

7000MHz

7008MHz

The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and data rate of the memory. Higher clock speeds can give increased performance in games and other apps.

2.maximum memory bandwidth

112GB/s

112.1GB/s

This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

3.VRAM

VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of a graphics card. More VRAM generally allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.

4.memory bus width

128bit

A wider bus width means that it can carry more data per cycle. It is an important factor of memory performance, and therefore the general performance of the graphics card.

5.version of GDDR memory

Newer versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher transfer rates that give increased performance.

6.Supports ECC memory

✖AMD Radeon RX 560

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.

Features

1.DirectX version

DirectX is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

2.OpenGL version

OpenGL is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

3.OpenCL version

Some apps use OpenCL to apply the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.

4.Supports multi-display technology

✔AMD Radeon RX 560

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

The graphics card supports multi-display technology. This allows you to configure multiple monitors in order to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as having a wider field of view.

5.load GPU temperature

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon RX 560)

A lower load temperature means that the card produces less heat and its cooling system performs better.

6.supports ray tracing

✖AMD Radeon RX 560

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows, and reflections in games.

7.Supports 3D

✔AMD Radeon RX 560

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D display and glasses).

8.supports DLSS

✖AMD Radeon RX 560

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an upscaling technology powered by AI. It allows the graphics card to render games at a lower resolution and upscale them to a higher resolution with near-native visual quality and increased performance. DLSS is only available on select games.

9.PassMark (G3D) result

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050)

This benchmark measures the graphics performance of a video card. Source: PassMark.

Ports

1.has an HDMI output

✔AMD Radeon RX 560

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Devices with a HDMI or mini HDMI port can transfer high definition video and audio to a display.

2.HDMI ports

More HDMI ports mean that you can simultaneously connect numerous devices, such as video game consoles and set-top boxes.

3.HDMI version

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon RX 560)

HDMI 2.0

Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, which allows for higher resolutions and frame rates.

4.DisplayPort outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using DisplayPort.

5.DVI outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using DVI.

6.mini DisplayPort outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using mini-DisplayPort.

Price comparison

Cancel

Which are the best graphics cards?

The Best $100 Entry-Level GPU: Radeon RX 560 vs. GeForce GTX 1050

Late last year I set out to crown the best entry-class graphics card by comparing the Radeon RX 460, GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti in 24 games, which concluded in a victory for Nvidia as its GTX 1050 handily dispatched the RX 460, offering about 18% more performance.

After such a decisive win, why would we bother hosting a rematch?

Since then, AMD has improved its drivers dramatically for the RX 460 in addition to sponsoring several popular triple-A titles and launching the updated, fully enabled RX 560 for the same $100 as its predecessor.

As you may know, the Radeon RX 460 was not the full Polaris 11 silicon, with just 896 cores enabled. This was discovered when some sneaky enthusiasts found a way to unlock all 1024 cores using a modified BIOS.

You might be wondering why AMD would manufacture a 123mm2 GPU consisting of three billion transistors only to not enable all of the cores? The primary reason is likely down to yields. AMD probably wasn’t seeing the success rate they would have liked initially, and so mass manufacturing RX 460s with 1024 cores enabled was not cost effective.

GPUs with a certain amount of defective cores are usually binned as lower-end parts. The failed cores are disabled and it gets sold as a part with a lower core count. Now that the 14nm process has matured, AMD is inevitably seeing a higher success rate and therefore producing fully enabled Polaris 11 parts is now viable.

Enter the Radeon RX 560, AMD’s last ditch effort to reclaim the entry-level market segment for this generation. Compared to the previous iteration, the RX 560 packs 14% more cores and they’re clocked 6% higher for good measure. But the GTX 1050 was 18% faster than its predecessor which is no small margin, so it’ll be interesting to see what this means for the RX 560.

To find out, I’ve tested both GPUs using 30 games, all of which have been tweaked using appropriate presets ranging from low to high depending on the title. All testing was conducted at 1080p using a Ryzen 5 1400 test system. The CPU wasn’t overclocked and was only pared with 8GB of DDR4-2666 — a realistic hardware configuration for this GPU price range, but without the risk of heavily bottlenecking the GPUs.

One thing worth noting is that I could only get my hands on a 4GB version of the RX 560 as buying an AMD graphics card is difficult right now with the latest mining boom. The buffer shouldn’t influence performance anyway. The only game where this might give the RX 560 an advantage over the 2GB GTX 1050 is Doom, which is unusual with its memory usage.

Please do note, I strongly recommend shoppers to avoid 4GB RX 560s because the GPU really isn’t powerful enough to properly utilize that much memory. This makes the price premium for 4GB versions impossible to justify in my opinion, so please opt for a 2GB RX 560, which should cost $100 or less. On to the benchmarks…

Test System Specs & Memory

AMD Ryzen 5 1400

Asrock X370 Taichi

16GB DDR4-3200 RAM

Samsung SSD 850 Evo 2TB

Gigabyte GTX 1050 Ti 4GB

Gigabyte GTX 1050 2GB

Gigabyte RX 560 4GB

Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

GeForce Game Ready Driver 382.53

Crimson ReLive Edition 17.6.2

Kick starting our testing is World of Tanks, which is using the updated HD client. This game isn’t hugely demanding despite looking pretty decent for what it is. Here, the GTX 1050 is quite a bit faster than the RX 560, delivering 26% more performance, but the RX 560 did push over 60fps for the most part, so performance at 1080p was quite acceptable. Still, the GTX 1050 is clearly the better option and will allow for smooth gameplay even at 1440p.

Next up we have Grand Theft Auto V and this game provides much more competitive results. Here the GTX 1050 was just 4% faster than the RX 560 while the 1050 Ti was only 5% faster than the vanilla 1050. All quality options were set to normal, MSAA was disabled and all the advanced graphics options were able disabled. This allowed for playable performance at 1080p for these GPUs.

The Witcher 3 is the last pre-2016 title that I have tested with and yet again we find another old release that favors the green team. This time the GTX 1050 was 10% faster than the RX 560, though it has to be said with HairWorks disabled and only the medium quality settings enabled at 1080p, performance wasn’t overly impressive with either GPU.

Rise of the Tomb Raider provides the RX 560 with its first win — sort of. The minimum frame rate was slightly higher for the Radeon graphics card while both churned out 47fps on average and the GTX 1050 Ti provided an additional 17% performance hitting 55fps.

Ashes of the Singularity has been included and as you might expect, the RX 560 is able to close in on the GTX 1050 for this one. That said, performance was much the same using either GPU, so we have a tie here.

Testing with Dirt 4 shows that the RX 560 is able to roughly match the GTX 1050.

Which is Better for Gaming?

Today we’ll be taking a look at two of those GPUs and comparing their price to performance: AMD’s RX 560 and NVIDIA’s GTX 1050.

OUR VERDICT:

If you’re in the market for a graphics card around $120, you’ll be much better served both in cost and in performance by GTX 1050 from NVIDIA.

AMD RX 560

NVIDIA GTX 1050

Compelling 1080p performance at reduced detail settings

Manageable heat/power consumption

Radeon RX 560 4GB is reasonably priced if you find a $120 card

Great eSports performance

Can play AAA games at Medium settings

Lots of compact cards available

Very low power consumpion

Comparable performance from GeForce GTX 1050 in most games

Higher power consumption than GTX 1050

More expensive than rivals

2GB memory limits the future potential

SPECIFICATION TABLE: MSI RX 560 VS MSI GTX 1050

Model	MSI RX 560	MSI GTX 1050
Brand	MSI	MSI
Model	Radeon RX 560 4GT LP OC	GTX 1050 2G OC
Interface	GTX 1660	RX 580
Interface	PCI Express x16 (Uses x8)	PCI Express 3. 0 x16
Chipset	GTX 1660	RX 580
Chipset Manufacturer	AMD	NVIDIA
GPU	Radeon RX 560	GeForce GTX 1050
Boost Clock	1196 MHz	1518 MHz
CUDA Cores		640
Memory	GTX 1660	RX 580
Effective Memory Clock	7000 MHz	7008 MHz
Memory Size	4GB	2GB
Memory Interface	128-Bit	128-Bit
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
3D API	GTX 1660	RX 580
DirectX	DirectX 12	DirectX 12
OpenGL	OpenGL 4. 5	OpenGL 4.5
Ports	GTX 1660	RX 580
HDMI	1 x HDMI	1 x HDMI 2.0b
Multi-Monitor Support	3	3
DisplayPort	1 x DisplayPort	1 x DisplayPort 1.4
Details	GTX 1660	RX 580
Max Resolution		7680 x 4320
SLI Support
Virtual Reality Ready		No
Cooler	Double Fans	Single Fan
Operating Systems Supported
Thermal Design Power	60W	75W
System Requirements	Recommended PSU: 400W	Power Consumption: 75W Recommended PSU: 300W
Power Connector
HDCP Ready	Yes
Form Factor & Dimensions	GTX 1660	RX 580
Max GPU Length	168 mm	177 mm
Card Dimensions (L x H	6. 61″ x 2.72″	6.97″ x 4.65″
Slot Width	Dual Slot	Dual Slot
Additionl Information	GTX 1660	RX 580
Date First Available	November 17, 2018	March 08, 2018

Expert Reviews For AMD RX 560:

By RelaxedTech
The RX 560 is a fantastic card that performs exactly as advertised. As far as pricing goes, on Amazon and Newegg I can find the RX 560 to be anywhere from $5 to $15 cheaper than the GTX 1050. With all that being said, the Radeon RX 560 deserve our Gold Award.

By TechAdvisor
The Gigabyte Radeon RX 560 OC offers good performance for the money in its 2GB version and a degree of future-proofing in its slightly more expensive 4GB version. Both offer good build quality, high performance cooling and silent operation options via the supplied overclocking software. However, there are less expensive RX 560 cards available from other vendors.

By PCGamer
Assassin’s Creed Origins is one of the strongest entries in the long-running series. Taking a year’s break paid off, and Egypt comes to life in a game that’s frequently visually…

By HardwareSecrets
Compared to the GeForce GTX 1050, we can say it was a technical tie: in some games, the Radeon RX 560 was faster; in other ones, it was slower; and they were similar on the other ones. The tested models have the advantage because they have 4 GB, which makes them better suited for future games than 2 GB models. So, we concluded that the Radeon RX 560 is a good video card for casual gamers, with a great cost/benefit ratio.

By TomsHardware
Radeon RX 560 doesn’t outperform its predecessor by as much as we expected. However, it’s still a fairly cool, fairly quiet card that serves up modest frame rates at 1920×1080 in modern games, so long as you’re willing to dial quality back to Medium…

Expert Reviews For NVIDIA GTX 1050:

By TrustedReviews
The best-value low-budget GPU for eSports gamers.Thanks to Overclockers UK for supplying this review…

By PCWorld
MSI’s overclocked GeForce GTX 1050 graphics card outpunches its AMD rival for significantly lower cost, and can seamlessly slip into prebuilt “big box” computers.

By TechPowerUp
I pretty much feel the same about GTX 1050 non-Ti, its gaming performance is simply too low for anything serious. Please do yourself a favor and save up a little bit more money to get something like GTX 1050 Ti or maybe RX 470, it will make a huge difference, no matter what games you play.

By HotHardware
The new GeForce GTX 1050 and GTX 1050 Ti are interesting products. They won’t set the gaming world aflame with blazing performance, but what they do is allow virtually any PC user to install a Pascal-based graphics card and enjoy many current games at 1080p, without having to worry about power supply limitations.

By BenchmarksReviews
Ask yourself what you expect your graphics card to do. If you don’t play any games and need a new graphics card just to watch movies, browse the web, and perhaps edit photos without constant stuttering and annoying lags, both the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050…

Above we have shown the overview and depth specifications of both the graphics card. Now, we are sharing the full review of both graphics cards.

QUICK SPECS: RX 560 vs GTX 1050

	AMD RX 560	Nvidia GTX 1050
S.Proces. / C.Cores	896/1024	640
Base Clock	1175 MHz	1354
Boost Clock	1275 MHz	1455
Memory	4GB	2GB
Interface	128 – Bit	128 – Bit
Bandwidth	112 GB/s	112 GB/s

NOTE -:

Things like Cuda cores, stream processors, and clock speeds are not directly comparable because both are based on different architectures.

AMD RX 560:

The RX 560 was released about 6 months later in April of 2017, the RX 560 launched at a price of only $99 USD. Its core runs at 1175MHz with 1024 shaders, has 4GB of GDDR5 memory running at 1750MHz, and is rated for 2611 GFLOPS of floating-point performance. Like the GTX 1050, it has a TDP of 75W which means it doesn’t require an extra PCIe power connector.

This model here is the RX 560 Aero ITX from MSI.

Nvidia GTX 1050:

The GTX 1050 was released in October of 2016 and started at a launch price of $109 USD. Its core frequency is 1354MHz with 640 shaders, it has 2GB of GDDR5 memory running at 1752MHz, and is rated for 1862 GFLOPS of floating-point performance. With a TDP of 75W, it doesn’t require an extra PCIe power connector. Both cards have dual-slot coolers and both cards are equipped with HDMI, DVI, and DisplayPort connectors.

The specific model we’re looking at here is the MSI GTX 1050 2GT OC.

PERFORMANCE: RX 560 vs GTX 1050

For the testing, I’m using the MSI GTX 1050 2GT OC and the
Radeon RX 560 AERO ITX 4G. The system that I’m testing with has an Intel i5-7500K CPU with 8GB RAM DDR4-2400MHz.

NOTE -:

The Following games are tested at 1080p and the FPS are shown is average.

Rocket League

First, we’ll look at Rocket League. From the minimum settings to maxed out, the GTX 1050 led by around 22% in average FPS. The difference in lows varied as high as 245%, with GTX 1050 no less than 30% faster than the RX 560 in all cases. That extra VRAM didn’t seem to help much here, and GTX 1050 comes out ahead.

PUBG

Second on the list is PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds or PUBG. On low settings, the 1050 comes out well ahead with a 60% lead in average FPS while maintaining similar lows. On medium settings, the 1050 again leads with 60% higher average FPS and again, similar lows. On ultra, however, things go south. Though the 1050 does come out ahead in average FPS, it falls far below the 560 in lows, dipping as far down as 8FPS while the 560 never dropped below 15.

Counter Strike: Global Offensive

Next we’ll look at CS:GO. On low and medium settings, the 1050 led in average FPS by about 12%. The lows weren’t so close; on low settings the GTX 1050 led in 1% and 0.1% lows by close to 60%, and on medium settings that lead increased. 1% lows on medium were 75% higher with the 1050 and 0.1% lows were more than double those of the RX 560. On high settings, the 560 trailed in average FPS by a whopping 40%, while its lows were again close to 50% lower than the GTX 1050.

Battlefield 1

On low settings, the GTX 1050 pretty effectively crushed the RX 560; almost 25% faster on average and lows were 40-60% higher. On medium, the gap closes with the RX 560 only trailing by about 14%, and on ultra settings, the gap between them was only about 10%. This was most likely due to the RX 560 having twice as much VRAM, which comes in handy once the texture and anti-aliasing settings start to get bumped up.

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

Performance is very similar across the board: no more than 3FPS separate the RX 560 from the GTX 1050 all the way from low settings up to ultra. I would have thought the RX 560 extra 2GB of VRAM, twice that of the GTX1050, would make a bigger difference in a game like this with all its high-resolution textures and hefty anti-aliasing on higher settings, but it appears both cards run almost identically.

GTA 5

For the first time, the RX 560 gets a win on low settings. Because of the stuttering glitch that the GTX 1050 suffers from on low settings, the RX 560 comes out well ahead. Average FPS hits 129 frames per second while lows barely dip below 80. On medium, the 560’s lead vanishes: the GTX 1050 was 27% faster on average with about a 20% lead in 1% lows. On high settings, the GTX 1050 ran about 20% faster average FPS but lows were closer to the 560: 12% faster 1% lows but 18% slower 0.1% lows.

Just Cause 3

Just Cause 3 is up next. Oddly enough, despite its usual preference for NVIDIA GPUs, results from JC3 were very similar. On low and medium settings, the GTX 1050 only led average FPS by about 10%, while on high settings the averages were nearly identical. Lows were likewise similar across the board; no more than 7FPS difference, but in most cases only 3 frames per second difference or less.

Overwatch

Finally, we have Overwatch here. On low settings, the 1050 absolutely smears the RX 560; 41% faster average, 72% faster 1% lows, and a 245% lead in 0.1% lows. On high settings, the two cards come much closer together: only a 6% difference in average FPS, identical 1% lows, and the 560 about 20% faster in 0.1% lows. On epic settings, the 1050’s lead comes back. 28% faster average, 24% faster 1% lows, and 8% faster 0. 1% lows. In Overwatch, the GTX 1050 is the clear winner.

POWER USAGE & TEMPERATURES: RX 560 vs GTX 1050

Every graphics card comes with a different cooler so looking at temperatures for two different cards isn’t exactly a like-for-like comparison, but it will give you a rough estimate of where they sit. Temperatures were measured in a room at 24C.

Idle Results:

At idle the RX 560 leveled off at 37C and the system drew 42W.

The GTX 1050, on the other hand, idled at 31C and only drew 32W from the wall – something about the 1050’s power management allows it to use almost no power when it’s at idle.

The 6-degree difference in temperature is due to the GTX 1050 having a BIOS-enforced minimum fan speed of 45%, which the RX 560 does not.

Underload Results:

Under load with Unigine’s Valley benchmark the 560 topped out at 72C and drew 101W from the wall. The GTX 1050 hit a slightly higher 76C and drew 106W from the wall.

Overall Results:

The RX 560 and GTX 1050 both have a TDP of 75W and they really aren’t going to draw much more power than that, nor produce more heat. From a subjective standpoint, neither card was louder nor quieter than the other, and neither one was really audible among the other noise sources in the case.

WHICH TO BUY: AMD RX 560 vs NVIDIA GTX 1050

I can only assume that the RX 560 price is inflated due to cryptocurrency mining and in the context of gaming, that means you’ll be getting a raw deal if you go with a RX 560 over the GTX 1050. It’s more expensive and noticeably slower.

There really isn’t any outside benefit to picking the RX 560; both cards use about the same power, make about the same noise, have the same display connectors, and neither one requires a PCIe power connector.

If you’re in the market for a graphics card around $120, you’ll be much better served both in cost and in performance by GTX 1050 from NVIDIA.

GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Radeon RX 560 Graphics cards Comparison

In this comparison between GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and Radeon RX 560 you will find out which graphics card performs better in today’s games. Bear in mind that third-party versions may have more efficient cooling and higher clock speeds. This will increase cards’ performance, though not by much. In addition to raw power you should also take into account the dimensions. Thicker models simply will not fit into a small mini-ITX case. The resolution of your monitor also affects the choice, since 4K gameplay requires a more powerful GPU. And don’t overspend on the graphics card. Other parts of your build may also need to be upgraded, save some money for the CPU or power supply. For some people GeForce GTX 1050 Ti will be the best choice, for others Radeon RX 560 will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.

GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Check Price

Radeon RX 560

Check Price

Main Specs

	GeForce GTX 1050 Ti	Radeon RX 560
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	75 Watt
Interface	PCIe 3. 0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Display Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
	Check Price	Check Price

Both graphics cards have the same power consumption of 75 Watt.
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is connected by PCIe 3.0 x16, and Radeon RX 560 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 interface.
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and Radeon RX 560 have maximum RAM of 4 GB.
Both cards are used in Desktops.
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is build with Pascal architecture, and Radeon RX 560 — with GCN 4.0.
Core clock speed of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is 116 MHz higher, than Radeon RX 560.
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is manufactured by 16 nm process technology, and Radeon RX 560 — by 14 nm process technology.
Radeon RX 560 is 25 mm longer, than GeForce GTX 1050 Ti.
Memory clock speed of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti is 8 MHz higher, than Radeon RX 560.

Game benchmarks

Assassin’s Creed OdysseyBattlefield 5Call of Duty: WarzoneCounter-Strike: Global OffensiveCyberpunk 2077Dota 2Far Cry 5FortniteForza Horizon 4Grand Theft Auto VMetro ExodusMinecraftPLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDSRed Dead Redemption 2The Witcher 3: Wild HuntWorld of Tanks
high / 1080p	35−40	18−20
ultra / 1080p	21−24	10−12
QHD / 1440p	16−18	5−6
4K / 2160p	10−11	4−5
low / 720p	60−65	35−40
medium / 1080p	40−45	21−24
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey is 100% more, than Radeon RX 560.
high / 1080p	55−60	30−33
ultra / 1080p	45−50	24−27
QHD / 1440p	35−40	9−10
4K / 2160p	18−20	7−8
low / 720p	100−110	60−65
medium / 1080p	60−65	30−35
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Battlefield 5 is 92% more, than Radeon RX 560.
low / 768p	50−55	50−55
QHD / 1440p	0−1	0−1
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and Radeon RX 560 have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone.
low / 768p	250−260	220−230
medium / 768p	220−230	190−200
ultra / 1080p	180−190	110−120
QHD / 1440p	110−120	75−80
4K / 2160p	70−75	40−45
high / 768p	210−220	160−170
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 30% more, than Radeon RX 560.
low / 768p	60−65	60−65
ultra / 1080p	−	45−50
medium / 1080p	55−60	55−60
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and Radeon RX 560 have the same average FPS in Cyberpunk 2077.
low / 768p	120−130	110−120
medium / 768p	110−120	100−110
ultra / 1080p	100−110	75−80
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Dota 2 is 16% more, than Radeon RX 560.
high / 1080p	45−50	21−24
ultra / 1080p	40−45	21−24
QHD / 1440p	27−30	18−20
4K / 2160p	14−16	7−8
low / 720p	80−85	45−50
medium / 1080p	45−50	24−27
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Far Cry 5 is 79% more, than Radeon RX 560.
high / 1080p	60−65	30−33
ultra / 1080p	45−50	21−24
QHD / 1440p	27−30	14−16
4K / 2160p	27−30	−
low / 720p	180−190	110−120
medium / 1080p	110−120	65−70
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Fortnite is 74% more, than Radeon RX 560.
high / 1080p	60−65	30−35
ultra / 1080p	45−50	24−27
QHD / 1440p	30−35	12−14
4K / 2160p	24−27	12−14
low / 720p	100−110	60−65
medium / 1080p	65−70	35−40
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Forza Horizon 4 is 86% more, than Radeon RX 560.
low / 768p	140−150	95−100
medium / 768p	120−130	85−90
high / 1080p	70−75	35−40
ultra / 1080p	30−35	14−16
QHD / 1440p	21−24	5−6
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Grand Theft Auto V is 64% more, than Radeon RX 560.
high / 1080p	24−27	12−14
ultra / 1080p	20−22	9−10
QHD / 1440p	16−18	−
4K / 2160p	8−9	2−3
low / 720p	65−70	35−40
medium / 1080p	30−35	16−18
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Metro Exodus is 106% more, than Radeon RX 560.
low / 768p	130−140	110−120
medium / 1080p	120−130	110−120
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Minecraft is 13% more, than Radeon RX 560.
ultra / 1080p	14−16	14−16
low / 720p	100−110	65−70
medium / 1080p	18−20	18−20
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS is 39% more, than Radeon RX 560.
high / 1080p	24−27	14−16
ultra / 1080p	16−18	9−10
QHD / 1440p	10−11	0−1
4K / 2160p	7−8	0−1
low / 720p	65−70	35−40
medium / 1080p	35−40	18−20
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 80% more, than Radeon RX 560.
low / 768p	130−140	65−70
medium / 768p	85−90	40−45
high / 1080p	45−50	21−24
ultra / 1080p	24−27	12−14
4K / 2160p	16−18	7−8
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 106% more, than Radeon RX 560.
low / 768p	90−95	90−95
medium / 768p	60−65	60−65
ultra / 1080p	50−55	40−45
high / 768p	60−65	55−60
The average gaming FPS of GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in World of Tanks is 6% more, than Radeon RX 560.

Full Specs

	GeForce GTX 1050 Ti	Radeon RX 560
Architecture	Pascal	GCN 4.0
Code name	N17P-G1	Polaris 21
Type	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	25 October 2016	18 April 2017
Pipelines	768	1024
Core clock speed	1291 MHz	1175 MHz
Boost Clock	1392 MHz	1275 MHz
Transistor count	3,300 million	3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	14 nm
Texture fill rate	66. 82	81.60
Floating-point performance	2,138 gflops	2,611 gflops
Length	145 mm	170 mm
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	7008 MHz	7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112 GB/s	112.0 GB/s
Shared memory	—
G-SYNC support	+
VR Ready	+
DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	6.4	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1. 2	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2.131
CUDA	+
Monero / XMR (CryptoNight)	0.3 kh/s
CUDA cores	768
Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256)	326 Mh/s
Decred / DCR (Decred)	1.01 Gh/s
Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto)	12.62 Mh/s
Zcash / ZEC (Equihash)	156.48 Sol/s
	Check Price	Check Price

Similar compares

GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Quadro T1000
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Quadro T2000 Max Q
Radeon RX 560 vs Quadro T1000
Radeon RX 560 vs Quadro T2000 Max Q
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Radeon RX 550X mobile
GeForce GTX 1050 Ti vs Radeon HD 7970M
Radeon RX 560 vs Radeon RX 550X mobile
Radeon RX 560 vs Radeon HD 7970M

GeForce GTX 1050 vs Radeon RX 560

Availability

MSRP in USD: $109

No items available

Availability

MSRP in USD: $99

VisionTek Radeon RX 560 4GB GDDR5 4M 4K Graphics Card, 4 Mini DisplayPort, 7. 1 Surround Sound, PCI Express, Low-Profile GPU, ATX & SFF (901278)

Buy on Amazon

$214.99

In Stock

Same as Founder’s Edition

Updated 73 minutes agoASUS ROG Strix Radeon RX 560 16CU 4GB Gaming GDDR5 DP HDMI DVI AMD Graphics Card (ROG-STRIX-RX560-4G-GAMING)

Buy on Amazon

$398.86

In Stock

Same as Founder’s Edition

Updated 73 minutes ago

Key Differences

In short — GeForce GTX 1050 outperforms Radeon RX 560 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing GeForce GTX 1050 is 175 days older than Radeon RX 560.

Advantages of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050

Advantages of AMD Radeon RX 560

Apex Legends

Resolution

1920×1080

Game Graphics

High

GeForce GTX 1050

Desktop • Oct 25th, 2016

FPS

133

100%

Value, $/FPS

Price, $

FPS Winner

Radeon RX 560

Desktop • Apr 18th, 2017

FPS

115

84%

Value, $/FPS

$1. 87/FPS

100%

Price, $

$214.99

100%

Value Winner

VisionTek Radeon RX 560 4GB GDDR5 4M 4K Graphics Card, 4 Mini DisplayPort, 7.1 Surround Sound, PCI Express, Low-Profile GPU, ATX & SFF (901278)

Buy for $214.99 on Amazon

In Stock

Updated 73 minutes ago

Resolution

1920×1080

Game Graphics

High

GeForce GTX 1050

Desktop • Oct 25th, 2016

Radeon RX 560

Desktop • Apr 18th, 2017

483

FPS

411

FPS

League of Legends

217

FPS

182

FPS

VALORANT

133

FPS

115

FPS

Apex Legends

115

FPS

102

FPS

Grand Theft Auto V

125

FPS

110

FPS

Fortnite

Theoretical Performance

GeForce GTX 1050

Desktop • Oct 25th, 2016

Pixel Fillrate

46.56 GPixel/s

100%

Texel Fillrate

58.2 GTexel/s

71%

Radeon RX 560

Desktop • Apr 18th, 2017

Pixel Fillrate

20. 4 GPixel/s

-28%

Texel Fillrate

81.6 GTexel/s

100%

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050	vs	AMD Radeon RX 560
Oct 25th, 2016	Release Date	Apr 18th, 2017
GeForce 10	Generation	Polaris
$109	MSRP	$99
1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	Outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
None	Power Connectors	None
Desktop	Segment	Desktop
2 GB	Memory	4 GB
GDDR5	Type	GDDR5
128-bit	Bus	128-bit
112.1 GB/s	Bandwidth	112 GB/s
1354 MHz	Base Clock Speed	1175 MHz
1455 MHz	Boost Clock Speed	1275 MHz
1752 MHz	Memory Clock Speed	1750 MHz

Builds Using GeForce GTX 1050 or Radeon RX 560

Apex Legends, 1080p, High

2022 HP TP01 Pavilion Business Desktop PC

88 FPS

$9. 37/FPS

GeForce GTX 1050

Core i5-10400F

8 GB, 256 GB SSD + 1 TB HDD

Buy on Amazon

$824.99

In Stock

Updated 64 minutes ago

2022 HP TP01 Pavilion Business Desktop PC

88 FPS

$9.94/FPS

GeForce GTX 1050

Core i5-10400F

16 GB, 256 GB SSD + 1 TB HDD

Buy on Amazon

$874.99

In Stock

Updated 64 minutes ago

Alienware Aurora R10 Gaming Desktop PC

125 FPS

$10.56/FPS

Radeon RX 560

Ryzen 5 5600X

16 GB, N/A Storage

Buy on Amazon

$1,319.99

In Stock

Updated 22490 minutes ago

2022 HP TP01 Pavilion Business Desktop PC

88 FPS

$10.74/FPS

GeForce GTX 1050

Core i5-10400F

16 GB, 512 GB SSD + 1 TB HDD

Buy on Amazon

$944.99

In Stock

Updated 64 minutes ago

2022 HP TP01 Pavilion Business Desktop PC

88 FPS

$11. 87/FPS

GeForce GTX 1050

Core i5-10400F

32 GB, 512 GB SSD + 1 TB HDD

Buy on Amazon

$1,044.99

In Stock

Updated 64 minutes ago

2022 HP TP01 Pavilion Business Desktop PC

88 FPS

$11.87/FPS

GeForce GTX 1050

Core i5-10400F

16 GB, 1 TB SSD + 1 TB HDD

Buy on Amazon

$1,044.99

In Stock

Updated 63 minutes ago

2022 HP TP01 Pavilion Business Desktop PC

88 FPS

$13.01/FPS

GeForce GTX 1050

Core i5-10400F

32 GB, 1 TB SSD + 1 TB HDD

Buy on Amazon

$1,144.99

In Stock

Updated 64 minutes ago

2021 Dell Inspiron Desktop PC

98 FPS

$15.2/FPS

GeForce GTX 1050

Core i7-9700

16 GB, 256 GB SSD + 1 TB HDD

Buy on Amazon

$1,489.99

In Stock

Updated 221951 minutes ago

iBUYPOWER Pro Gaming PC

82 FPS

$16. 1/FPS

Radeon RX 560

Ryzen 5 3600

8 GB, 240 GB SSD

Buy on Amazon

$1,319.99

In Stock

Updated 65 minutes ago

ROG Strix GL10CS Gaming Desktop PC

92 FPS

$18.47/FPS

GeForce GTX 1050

Core i7-8700

8 GB, N/A Storage

Buy on Amazon

$1,699

In Stock

Updated 65 minutes ago

Select from the most popular similar graphics card comparisons. Most compared graphics card combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.

GeForce GTX 680M

N/A Stock

GeForce GTX 1050

N/A Stock

Radeon R9 280X

N/A Stock

Radeon RX 560

$214.99

GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB

$844.99

Radeon RX 560

$214.99

GeForce RTX 3050

$280.25

Radeon RX 560

$214.99

Radeon RX 6950 XT

$999.99

Radeon RX 560

$214.99

GeForce RTX 2060 12 GB

$209.99

Radeon RX 560

$214. 99

Radeon RX 6600

$249.99

Radeon RX 560

$214.99

Radeon RX 6500 XT

$159.98

Radeon RX 560

$214.99

GeForce RTX 2060 12 GB

$209.99

GeForce GTX 1050

N/A Stock

AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop) vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (Desktop) vs AMD Radeon RX 560 (Laptop)

Die folgenden Benchmarks basieren auf unseren Spieletests mit Testnotebooks. Die Performance dieser Grafikkarte bei den gelisteten Spielen ist abhängig von der verwendeten CPU, Speicherausstattung, Treiber und auch Betriebssystem. Dadurch müssen die untenstehenden Werte nicht repräsentativ sein. Detaillierte Informationen über das verwendete System sehen Sie nach einem Klick auf den fps-Wert.

log 01. 09:37:16

#0 checking url part for id 8810 +0s … 0s

#1 checking url part for id 7583 +0s … 0s

#2 checking url part for id 7682 +0s … 0s

#3 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s . .. 0s

#4 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:27:11 +0200 +0s … 0s

#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.09s … 0.09s

#6 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.09s

#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.09s

#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.09s

#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.091s

#10 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.091s

#11 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.091s

#12 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.091s

#13 composed specs +0s … 0.091s

#14 did output specs +0s … 0.091s

#15 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s … 0.091s

#16 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.049s … 0.139s

#17 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s

#18 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.139s

#19 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.139s

#20 getting avg benchmarks for device 8810 +0s … 0.139s

#21 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.14s

#22 got single benchmarks 8810 +0.015s … 0.155s

#23 getting avg benchmarks for device 7583 +0s … 0.155s

#24 got single benchmarks 7583 +0.012s … 0.167s

#25 getting avg benchmarks for device 7682 +0s … 0.167s

#26 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.167s

#27 got single benchmarks 7682 +0.009s … 0.176s

#28 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s … 0.176s

#29 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.177s

#30 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.178s

#31 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.178s

#32 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.178s

#33 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.178s

#34 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.178s

#35 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.179s

#36 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.179s

#37 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.179s

#38 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.18s

#39 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.18s

#40 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.18s

#41 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.181s

#42 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.181s

#43 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.181s

#44 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.181s

#45 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.181s

#46 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.182s

#47 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.182s

#48 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.182s

#49 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.182s

#50 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.182s

#51 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.182s

#52 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.182s

#53 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.183s

#54 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.183s

#55 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.183s

#56 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.183s

#57 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.183s

#58 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.183s

#59 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.183s

#60 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.183s

#61 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.184s

#62 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.184s

#63 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.184s

#64 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.184s

#65 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.184s

#66 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.184s

#67 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.184s

#68 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.185s

#69 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.185s

#70 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.186s

#71 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.186s

#72 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.186s

#73 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.186s

#74 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.186s

#75 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.186s

#76 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.186s

#77 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.187s

#78 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.187s

#79 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.187s

#80 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.187s

#81 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.187s

#82 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.187s

#83 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.187s

#84 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.187s

#85 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.187s

#86 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#87 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.188s

#88 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#89 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#90 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#91 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#92 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#93 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.19s

#94 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#95 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.191s

#96 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#97 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#98 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.192s

#99 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.192s

#100 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.192s

#101 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#102 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#103 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.193s

#104 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.194s

#105 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#106 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#107 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#108 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.196s

#109 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.196s

#110 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.197s

#111 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.197s

#112 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.198s

#113 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.198s

#114 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.198s

#115 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.199s

#116 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.199s

#117 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.199s

#118 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.2s

#119 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.2s

#120 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.2s

#121 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.2s

#122 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s .. . 0.2s

#123 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.2s

#124 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.201s

#125 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.201s

#126 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.201s

#127 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.201s

#128 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.202s

#129 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.202s

#130 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.203s

#131 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.203s

#132 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.205s

#133 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.206s

#134 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.206s

#135 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.207s

#136 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.207s

#137 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.208s

#138 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.209s

#139 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.209s

#140 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.21s

#141 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.21s

#142 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.211s

#143 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.211s

#144 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.211s

#145 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.212s

#146 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.212s

#147 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.212s

#148 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.213s

#149 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.213s

#150 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.213s

#151 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.214s

#152 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.214s

#153 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.214s

#154 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.215s

#155 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.215s

#156 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.215s

#157 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.215s

#158 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.216s

#159 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.216s

#160 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.216s

#161 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.216s

#162 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.217s

#163 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.217s

#164 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.218s

#165 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.218s

#166 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.218s

#167 min, max, avg, median took s +0.001s … 0.219s

#168 before gaming benchmark output +0s … 0.219s

#169 Got 782 rows for game benchmarks. +0.074s … 0.293s

#170 composed SQL query for gamebenchmarks +0s … 0.293s

#171 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.293s

#172 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.293s

#173 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.293s

#174 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.293s

#175 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.293s

#176 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.293s

#177 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.293s

#178 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 293s

#179 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#180 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#181 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#182 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#183 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#184 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#185 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#186 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#187 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#188 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#189 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#190 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#191 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#192 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.294s

#193 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#194 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#195 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#196 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#197 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#198 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.294s

#199 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#200 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#201 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#202 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#203 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#204 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#205 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#206 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.295s

#207 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#208 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#209 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#210 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#211 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#212 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#213 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#214 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#215 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#216 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#217 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#218 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#219 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.295s

#220 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.295s

#221 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#222 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#223 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#224 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#225 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#226 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#227 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#228 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#229 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#230 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#231 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#232 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#233 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#234 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.296s

#235 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#236 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#237 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#238 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#239 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#240 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#241 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#242 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#243 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#244 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.296s

#245 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#246 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#247 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#248 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.297s

#249 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#250 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#251 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#252 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#253 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#254 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#255 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#256 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#257 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#258 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#259 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#260 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#261 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#262 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.297s

#263 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#264 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#265 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#266 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#267 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#268 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#269 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#270 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#271 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#272 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.297s

#273 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#274 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#275 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#276 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.298s

#277 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#278 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#279 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#280 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#281 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#282 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#283 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#284 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#285 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#286 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#287 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#288 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#289 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#290 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.298s

#291 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#292 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#293 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#294 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#295 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#296 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#297 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#298 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#299 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#300 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#301 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#302 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#303 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#304 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.298s

#305 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#306 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#307 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#308 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#309 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.298s

#310 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#311 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#312 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#313 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#314 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#315 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#316 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#317 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#318 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.299s

#319 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#320 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#321 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#322 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#323 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#324 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#325 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#326 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#327 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#328 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#329 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#330 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#331 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#332 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.299s

#333 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#334 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#335 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#336 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#337 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#338 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#339 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#340 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#341 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#342 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#343 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#344 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#345 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#346 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.299s

#347 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#348 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#349 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#350 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#351 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#352 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#353 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#354 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#355 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#356 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#357 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#358 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#359 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#360 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.299s

#361 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#362 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#363 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#364 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#365 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#366 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#367 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#368 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.299s

#369 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#370 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#371 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#372 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#373 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#374 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 3s

#375 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#376 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#377 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#378 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#379 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#380 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#381 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#382 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#383 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#384 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#385 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#386 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#387 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#388 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#389 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.3s

#390 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#391 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#392 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#393 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#394 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#395 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#396 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#397 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#398 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#399 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#400 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#401 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#402 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#403 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#404 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.3s

#405 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#406 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#407 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#408 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#409 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#410 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#411 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#412 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#413 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#414 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#415 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#416 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.3s

#417 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#418 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#419 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.301s

#420 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#421 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#422 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#423 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#424 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#425 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#426 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#427 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#428 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#429 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#430 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#431 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#432 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#433 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.301s

#434 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#435 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#436 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#437 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#438 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#439 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#440 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#441 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#442 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#443 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#444 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#445 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#446 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#447 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.301s

#448 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#449 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#450 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#451 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#452 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#453 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#454 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#455 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#456 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#457 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#458 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#459 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#460 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#461 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.301s

#462 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#463 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#464 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#465 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#466 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#467 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#468 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#469 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#470 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#471 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#472 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#473 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#474 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#475 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.301s

#476 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#477 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#478 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#479 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#480 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#481 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#482 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#483 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.301s

#484 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#485 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#486 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#487 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#488 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#489 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.302s

#490 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#491 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#492 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#493 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#494 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#495 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#496 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#497 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#498 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#499 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#500 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#501 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#502 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#503 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.302s

#504 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#505 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#506 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#507 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#508 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#509 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#510 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#511 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#512 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#513 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#514 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#515 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#516 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#517 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.302s

#518 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#519 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#520 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#521 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#522 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#523 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#524 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#525 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#526 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#527 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#528 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#529 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#530 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#531 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.302s

#532 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#533 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#534 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#535 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#536 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.302s

#537 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#538 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#539 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#540 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#541 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#542 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#543 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#544 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#545 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.303s

#546 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#547 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#548 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#549 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#550 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#551 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#552 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#553 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#554 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#555 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#556 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#557 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#558 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#559 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.303s

#560 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#561 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#562 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#563 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#564 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#565 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#566 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#567 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#568 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#569 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#570 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#571 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#572 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#573 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.303s

#574 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#575 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#576 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#577 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#578 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#579 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#580 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#581 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#582 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#583 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#584 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#585 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#586 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#587 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.303s

#588 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#589 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#590 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#591 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#592 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.303s

#593 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#594 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#595 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#596 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#597 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#598 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#599 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#600 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#601 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.304s

#602 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#603 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#604 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#605 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#606 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#607 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#608 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#609 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#610 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#611 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#612 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#613 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#614 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#615 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.304s

#616 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#617 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#618 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#619 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#620 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.304s

#621 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#622 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#623 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#624 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#625 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#626 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#627 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#628 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#629 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.305s

#630 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#631 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#632 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#633 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#634 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#635 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#636 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#637 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#638 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#639 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#640 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#641 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#642 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#643 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.305s

#644 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#645 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#646 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#647 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#648 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#649 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#650 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#651 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#652 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#653 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#654 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#655 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#656 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#657 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.305s

#658 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#659 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#660 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#661 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#662 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#663 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#664 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#665 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#666 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#667 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#668 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.305s

#669 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#670 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#671 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.306s

#672 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#673 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#674 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#675 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#676 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#677 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#678 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#679 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#680 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#681 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#682 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#683 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#684 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#685 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.306s

#686 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#687 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#688 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#689 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#690 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#691 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#692 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#693 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#694 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#695 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#696 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#697 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#698 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#699 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.306s

#700 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#701 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#702 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#703 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.306s

#704 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#705 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#706 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#707 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#708 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#709 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#710 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#711 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#712 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#713 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.307s

#714 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#715 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#716 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#717 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#718 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#719 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#720 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#721 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#722 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#723 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#724 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#725 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#726 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#727 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.307s

#728 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#729 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#730 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#731 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#732 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#733 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#734 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#735 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#736 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#737 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#738 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#739 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#740 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#741 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.307s

#742 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#743 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#744 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#745 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#746 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#747 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#748 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#749 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#750 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#751 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#752 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#753 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.307s

#754 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#755 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.308s

#756 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#757 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#758 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#759 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#760 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#761 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#762 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#763 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#764 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#765 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#766 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#767 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#768 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#769 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.308s

#770 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#771 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#772 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#773 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#774 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#775 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#776 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#777 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#778 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#779 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.308s

#780 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#781 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#782 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#783 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.309s

#784 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#785 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#786 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#787 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#788 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#789 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#790 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#791 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#792 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#793 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#794 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#795 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#796 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#797 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.309s

#798 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#799 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#800 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#801 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#802 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#803 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#804 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#805 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#806 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#807 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#808 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#809 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.309s

#810 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.31s

#811 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.31s

#812 got data and put it in $dataArray +0.004s … 0.314s

#813 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.003s … 0.317s

#814 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.317s

#815 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.317s

#816 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.317s

#817 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.318s

#818 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.318s

#819 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.318s

#820 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.319s

#821 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.319s

#822 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.319s

#823 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.319s

#824 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.32s

#825 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.32s

#826 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.32s

#827 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.32s

#828 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.321s

#829 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.321s

#830 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.321s

#831 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.321s

#832 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s … 0.323s

#833 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.323s

#834 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.323s

#835 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.323s

#836 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.324s

#837 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.324s

#838 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.324s

#839 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.324s

#840 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.326s

#841 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.326s

#842 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.326s

#843 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.326s

#844 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.327s

#845 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.327s

#846 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.327s

#847 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.328s

#848 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.328s

#849 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.328s

#850 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.329s

#851 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.329s

#852 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.329s

#853 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.33s

#854 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.33s

#855 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.33s

#856 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.33s

#857 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.331s

#858 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.332s

#859 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0. 001s … 0.332s

#860 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.332s

#861 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.332s

#862 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.332s

#863 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.333s

#864 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.333s

#865 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.333s

#866 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.333s

#867 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.334s

#868 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.334s

#869 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.334s

#870 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.334s

#871 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.335s

#872 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.335s

#873 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.335s

#874 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.336s

#875 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.336s

#876 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.336s

#877 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.336s

#878 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.337s

#879 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.337s

#880 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.337s

#881 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.337s

#882 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.338s

#883 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.338s

#884 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.338s

#885 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.339s

#886 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.339s

#887 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.339s

#888 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.339s

#889 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.339s

#890 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.003s … 0.343s

#891 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0. 002s … 0.345s

#892 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s … 0.346s

#893 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.348s

#894 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.348s

#895 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.348s

#896 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.348s

#897 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.349s

#898 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.349s

#899 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.349s

#900 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.35s

#901 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.35s

#902 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.35s

#903 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s … 0.352s

#904 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.352s

#905 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.352s

#906 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.352s

#907 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0. 002s … 0.354s

#908 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.354s

#909 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.354s

#910 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s … 0.356s

#911 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.356s

#912 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.357s

#913 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.002s … 0.359s

#914 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.359s

#915 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.359s

#916 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.359s

#917 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.359s

#918 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.359s

#919 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.36s

#920 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.362s

#921 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.363s

#922 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.363s

#923 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.364s

#924 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.003s … 0.366s

#925 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.367s

#926 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.367s

#927 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.367s

#928 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.367s

#929 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.367s

#930 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.367s

#931 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.367s

#932 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.368s

#933 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.368s

#934 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.368s

#935 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.368s

#936 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.369s

#937 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.369s

#938 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.369s

#939 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.369s

#940 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.37s

#941 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.37s

#942 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.37s

#943 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.37s

#944 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.371s

#945 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.371s

#946 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.371s

#947 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.371s

#948 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.373s

#949 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.373s

#950 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.373s

#951 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.373s

#952 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.374s

#953 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.374s

#954 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.374s

#955 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.374s

#956 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.374s

#957 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.374s

#958 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.374s

#959 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.374s

#960 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.375s

#961 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.375s

#962 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.375s

#963 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.375s

#964 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.376s

#965 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.376s

#966 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.376s

#967 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.376s

#968 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.377s

#969 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.377s

#970 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.377s

#971 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.377s

#972 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.377s

#973 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.378s

#974 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.378s

#975 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.378s

#976 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.378s

#977 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.378s

#978 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.378s

#979 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.378s

#980 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.378s

#981 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.378s

#982 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.378s

#983 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.378s

#984 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.379s

#985 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.379s

#986 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.379s

#987 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.379s

#988 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.38s

#989 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.38s

#990 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.38s

#991 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.38s

#992 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.381s

#993 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.381s

#994 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.381s

#995 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.381s

#996 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.381s

#997 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.381s

#998 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.381s

#999 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.381s

#1000 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.381s

#1001 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.012s … 0.393s

#1002 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.005s … 0.398s

#1003 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.004s … 0.402s

#1004 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.005s … 0.407s

#1005 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.407s

#1006 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.407s

#1007 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.407s

#1008 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.407s

#1009 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.407s

#1010 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.407s

#1011 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.407s

#1012 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.408s

#1013 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.408s

#1014 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.408s

#1015 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.408s

#1016 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.408s

#1017 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.408s

#1018 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.408s

#1019 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.408s

#1020 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.409s

#1021 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.409s

#1022 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.409s

#1023 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.409s

#1024 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.409s

#1025 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.409s

#1026 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.409s

#1027 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.409s

#1028 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.409s

#1029 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.409s

#1030 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.409s

#1031 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.409s

#1032 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.41s

#1033 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.41s

#1034 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.41s

#1035 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.41s

#1036 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.41s

#1037 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.41s

#1038 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.411s

#1039 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.411s

#1040 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.411s

#1041 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.411s

#1042 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.411s

#1043 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.411s

#1044 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.411s

#1045 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.411s

#1046 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.411s

#1047 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.411s

#1048 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.411s

#1049 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.411s

#1050 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.411s

#1051 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1052 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1053 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.412s

#1054 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1055 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1056 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1057 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.412s

#1058 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1059 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1060 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1061 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.412s

#1062 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1063 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.412s

#1064 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1065 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1066 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1067 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1068 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1069 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.412s

#1070 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.413s

#1071 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.413s

#1072 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.413s

#1073 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.413s

#1074 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.414s

#1075 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.414s

#1076 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.414s

#1077 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.414s

#1078 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.414s

#1079 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.414s

#1080 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.414s

#1081 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.414s

#1082 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.415s

#1083 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.415s

#1084 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.415s

#1085 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.415s

#1086 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.415s

#1087 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.415s

#1088 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.415s

#1089 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.415s

#1090 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.415s

#1091 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.415s

#1092 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.415s

#1093 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.416s

#1094 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.416s

#1095 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.416s

#1096 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.416s

#1097 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.416s

#1098 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.416s

#1099 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.416s

#1100 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.416s

#1101 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.417s

#1102 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.417s

#1103 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.417s

#1104 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.417s

#1105 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.418s

#1106 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.418s

#1107 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.418s

#1108 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.418s

#1109 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.418s

#1110 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.418s

#1111 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.418s

#1112 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.418s

#1113 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.419s

#1114 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.419s

#1115 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.419s

#1116 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.419s

#1117 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.42s

#1118 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.42s

#1119 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.42s

#1120 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.42s

#1121 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.42s

#1122 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.42s

#1123 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.42s

#1124 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.42s

#1125 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.421s

#1126 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.421s

#1127 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.421s

#1128 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.421s

#1129 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.421s

#1130 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.421s

#1131 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.421s

#1132 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.421s

#1133 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.422s

#1134 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.422s

#1135 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.422s

#1136 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.422s

#1137 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.422s

#1138 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.422s

#1139 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.422s

#1140 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.422s

#1141 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.422s

#1142 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.422s

#1143 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.422s

#1144 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.422s

#1145 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.423s

#1146 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.423s

#1147 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.423s

#1148 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.423s

#1149 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.423s

#1150 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.423s

#1151 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.424s

#1152 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.424s

#1153 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.424s

#1154 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.424s

#1155 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.424s

#1156 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.424s

#1157 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.424s

#1158 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.424s

#1159 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.424s

#1160 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.425s

#1161 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.425s

#1162 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.425s

#1163 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.425s

#1164 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.425s

#1165 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.425s

#1166 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.426s

#1167 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.426s

#1168 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.426s

#1169 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.426s

#1170 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.426s

#1171 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.426s

#1172 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.426s

#1173 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.426s

#1174 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.427s

#1175 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.427s

#1176 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.427s

#1177 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.427s

#1178 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.427s

#1179 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.427s

#1180 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.427s

#1181 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.427s

#1182 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.427s

#1183 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.427s

#1184 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.427s

#1185 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.427s

#1186 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.427s

#1187 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.427s

#1188 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.427s

#1189 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.427s

#1190 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.427s

#1191 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.427s

#1192 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.427s

#1193 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.428s

#1194 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.428s

#1195 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.428s

#1196 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.429s

#1197 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.429s

#1198 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.429s

#1199 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.429s

#1200 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.429s

#1201 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.429s

#1202 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.429s

#1203 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.429s

#1204 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.43s

#1205 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.43s

#1206 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.43s

#1207 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.431s

#1208 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.431s

#1209 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.431s

#1210 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.431s

#1211 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.431s

#1212 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.431s

#1213 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.431s

#1214 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.431s

#1215 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.431s

#1216 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.431s

#1217 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.431s

#1218 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.431s

#1219 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.431s

#1220 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.431s

#1221 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.432s

#1222 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.432s

#1223 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.432s

#1224 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.432s

#1225 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.432s

#1226 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.432s

#1227 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.432s

#1228 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.432s

#1229 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.432s

#1230 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.433s

#1231 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.433s

#1232 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.433s

#1233 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.433s

#1234 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.433s

#1235 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.434s

#1236 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.434s

#1237 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.434s

#1238 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.434s

#1239 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.434s

#1240 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.434s

#1241 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.434s

#1242 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.434s

#1243 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.434s

#1244 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.434s

#1245 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.434s

#1246 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.434s

#1247 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.435s

#1248 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.435s

#1249 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.435s

#1250 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.435s

#1251 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.436s

#1252 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.436s

#1253 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.436s

#1254 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.436s

#1255 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.436s

#1256 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.436s

#1257 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.436s

#1258 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.436s

#1259 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.436s

#1260 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.436s

#1261 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.436s

#1262 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.437s

#1263 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1264 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1265 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1266 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1267 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1268 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1269 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1270 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1271 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1272 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1273 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.437s

#1274 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.437s

#1275 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1276 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1277 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1278 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.437s

#1279 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.438s

#1280 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.438s

#1281 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.438s

#1282 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.439s

#1283 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.439s

#1284 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.439s

#1285 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.439s

#1286 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.439s

#1287 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.439s

#1288 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.439s

#1289 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.439s

#1290 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.439s

#1291 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.439s

#1292 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.439s

#1293 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.439s

#1294 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.44s

#1295 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.44s

#1296 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.44s

#1297 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.441s

#1298 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.441s

#1299 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1300 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1301 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1302 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.441s

#1303 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1304 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1305 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1306 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.441s

#1307 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1308 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1309 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1310 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1311 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1312 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.441s

#1313 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1314 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1315 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.441s

#1316 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.441s

#1317 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.442s

#1318 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.442s

#1319 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.442s

#1320 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.442s

#1321 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.442s

#1322 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.442s

#1323 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.442s

#1324 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.442s

#1325 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.442s

#1326 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.442s

#1327 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.442s

#1328 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.443s

#1329 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.444s

#1330 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.444s

#1331 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.444s

#1332 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.444s

#1333 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.444s

#1334 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.444s

#1335 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.444s

#1336 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.444s

#1337 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.444s

#1338 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.445s

#1339 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.445s

#1340 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.445s

#1341 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.445s

#1342 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.446s

#1343 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.446s

#1344 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.446s

#1345 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.446s

#1346 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.446s

#1347 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.446s

#1348 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.446s

#1349 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.446s

#1350 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.446s

#1351 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.446s

#1352 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.446s

#1353 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.446s

#1354 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.446s

#1355 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.446s

#1356 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1357 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1358 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0. 001s … 0.447s

#1359 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1360 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1361 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.447s

#1362 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1363 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1364 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1365 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1366 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1367 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.447s

#1368 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1369 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1370 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1371 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.447s

#1372 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.447s

#1373 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.003s … 0.45s

#1374 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.45s

#1375 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.45s

#1376 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.45s

#1377 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.45s

#1378 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.452s

#1379 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.003s … 0.456s

#1380 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.456s

#1381 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.456s

#1382 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.456s

#1383 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s … 0.458s

#1384 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.004s … 0.462s

#1385 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.462s

#1386 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.462s

#1387 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.463s

#1388 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.463s

#1389 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.463s

#1390 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.463s

#1391 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.463s

#1392 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.463s

#1393 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.463s

#1394 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.463s

#1395 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.463s

#1396 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.464s

#1397 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.464s

#1398 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.464s

#1399 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.464s

#1400 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 464s

#1401 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.464s

#1402 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.465s

#1403 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.465s

#1404 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.466s

#1405 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.466s

#1406 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.466s

#1407 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.466s

#1408 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.467s

#1409 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.467s

#1410 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.467s

#1411 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.467s

#1412 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.467s

#1413 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.467s

#1414 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0. 001s … 0.468s

#1415 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.468s

#1416 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.468s

#1417 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.469s

#1418 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.47s

#1419 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1420 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.47s

#1421 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1422 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1423 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1424 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1425 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.47s

#1426 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1427 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1428 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1429 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.47s

#1430 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.47s

#1431 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1432 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1433 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1434 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1435 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.47s

#1436 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1437 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1438 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.47s

#1439 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.47s

#1440 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.471s

#1441 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.471s

#1442 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.471s

#1443 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.471s

#1444 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.471s

#1445 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.472s

#1446 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.472s

#1447 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.472s

#1448 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.472s

#1449 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.472s

#1450 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.472s

#1451 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.472s

#1452 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.472s

#1453 benchmarks composed for output. +0s … 0.472s

#1454 calculated avg scores. +0s … 0.472s

#1455 return log +0.002s … 0.475s

0022 4GB vs 2GB

8.74 GTexels/s higher number of textured pixels? more stream processors?
1024 vs 768

Supports multi-monitor technology?

16 more texture units (TMUs)?
64 vs 48

Why is Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 better than AMD Radeon RX 560?

GPU frequency 217MHz higher?
1392MHz vs 1175MHz
16. 03 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
36.43 GPixel/s vs 20.4 GPixel/s
243MHz faster GPU turbo speed?
1518MHz vs 1275MHz
300million more transistors?
3300 million vs 3000 million
1 newer version of OpenCL?
3 vs 2
8 more ROPs?
24 vs 16
Has DPFP?
25.3mm narrower?
144.7mm vs 170mm

Which comparisons are the most popular?

AMD Radeon RX 560

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 RX 4 Laptop

AMD 50003

AMD Radeon RX 550

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

AMD Radeon RX Vega 8

AMD Radeon RX 560

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1650 OC

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

AMD Radeon RX 550

AMD Radeon RX 560

NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 960

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050

NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 16509000

AMD RADEN RADEN0003

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

AMD Radeon Vega 8

AMD Radeon RX 560

AMD Radeon RX 580

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce MX330

AMD Radeon RX 560

AMD Radeon RX 470

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce MX350 RX60 AMD

Laptop0003

AMD Radeon RX 570

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce MX150

AMD Radeon RX 560

AMD Radeon Vega 8

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Nvidia GeForce 940MX

Price Match

User Reviews

Overall Rating

0 AMD Radeon

2 reviews of users

AMD Radeon RX 560

/10

2 Reviews of users

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 User reviews

Features

Value for money

10. 0 /10

2 votes

6.5 /10

9000 2 votes0003

9.0 /10

2 Votes

6.0 /10

2 Votes

performance

/10

2 Votes

6.0 /10 9000 9000 2 Votes 2 Votes Fans

5.5 /10

2 Votes

10.0 /10

2 Votes

Reliability

10.0 /10

2 VOTES

9000

6.0 /10

2 votes

Performance

1.GPU clock speed

1175MHz

1392MHz

The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

2.turbo GPU

1275MHz

1518MHz

When the GPU is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.

3.pixel speed

20.4 GPixel/s

36.43 GPixel/s

The number of pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.

4.flops

2.6 TFLOPS

1.73 TFLOPS

FLOPS is a measure of GPU processing power.

5.texture size

81.6 GTexels/s

72.86 GTexels/s

Number of textured pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.

6.GPU memory speed

1750MHz

1752MHz

Memory speed is one aspect that determines memory bandwidth.

7.shading patterns

Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors in a video card that are responsible for processing various aspects of an image.

8.textured units (TMUs)

TMUs accept textured units and bind them to the geometric layout of the 3D scene. More TMUs generally means texture information is processed faster.

9 ROPs

ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, such as writing the final pixel data to memory and for performing other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the appearance of graphics.

Memory

1.memory effective speed

7000MHz

7008MHz

The effective memory clock frequency is calculated from the size and data transfer rate of the memory. A higher clock speed can give better performance in games and other applications.

2.max memory bandwidth

112GB/s

112.1GB/s

This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.

3.VRAM

VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of the graphics card. More VRAM usually allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.

4. memory bus width

128bit

Wider memory bus means it can carry more data per cycle. This is an important factor in memory performance, and therefore the overall performance of the graphics card.

5. GDDR memory versions

Later versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher data transfer rates, which improve performance.

6. Supports memory debug code

✖AMD Radeon RX 560

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Memory debug code can detect and fix data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.

Functions

1.DirectX version

DirectX is used in games with a new version that supports better graphics.

2nd version of OpenGL

The newer version of OpenGL, the better graphics quality in games.

OpenCL version 3.

Some applications use OpenCL to use the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions are more functional and better quality.

4. Supports multi-monitor technology

✔AMD Radeon RX 560

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

The video card has the ability to connect multiple screens. This allows you to set up multiple monitors at the same time to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as a wider field of view.

5. GPU temperature at boot

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX 560)

Lower boot temperature means the card generates less heat and the cooling system works better.

6.supports ray tracing

✖AMD Radeon RX 560

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows and reflections in games.

7. Supports 3D

✔AMD Radeon RX 560

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D screen and glasses).

8. supports DLSS

✖AMD Radeon RX 560

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an AI based scaling technology. This allows the graphics card to render games at lower resolutions and upscale them to higher resolutions with near-native visual quality and improved performance. DLSS is only available in some games.

9. PassMark result (G3D)

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050)

This test measures the graphics performance of a graphics card. Source: Pass Mark.

Ports

1.has HDMI output

✔AMD Radeon RX 560

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

Devices with HDMI or mini-HDMI ports can stream HD video and audio to an attached display.

2.HDMI connectors

More HDMI connectors allow you to connect multiple devices at the same time, such as game consoles and TVs.

HDMI version 3

Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX 560)

HDMI 2.0

New versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, resulting in higher resolutions and frame rates.

4. DisplayPort outputs

Allows connection to a display using DisplayPort.

5.DVI outputs

Allows connection to a display using DVI.

6. Mini DisplayPort 9 outputs0003

Allows you to connect to a display using Mini DisplayPort.

Price Match

Cancel

Which graphics cards are better?

Which graphics card is better — NVidia GeForce GTX 1050 or AMD Radeon RX 560?

A true PC gamer always strives to optimize his machine so that it meets the requirements of all new products. After all, modern games surpass themselves, becoming better and better: the image is being transformed, the drawn world is more and more like the real one.

At the same time, powerful components usually cost so much that you involuntarily have to think: is it worth playing at maximum speed for six months on Chinese noodles? If not, then video cards for games from the budget category come to the fore. Which one is the best, and how to choose it? The first positions in the race for leadership were unconditionally taken by the NVidia GeForce GTX 1050 and AMD Radeon RX 560 video cards, a review in detail and an objective comparison of which are described below in the article.

Interesting: Overview of the MSI GP62M World of Tanks Edition laptop — will you get into tanks?

NVidia GeForce GTX 1050

The GTX 1050 gaming graphics card has earned its share of praise in the gaming community. Its characteristics are pleasantly surprising, but at the same time it remains in the budget category. The video card is produced under different brands and in different configurations, so before you buy this card, you should pay attention to getting to know each of the options.

Actual to know: Should I buy PS4 in 2018 or wait for PlayStation 5?

The board from «Gigabyte» immediately impresses with its numbers: its memory capacity corresponds to two thousand «meters»; bit depth — 128 bits; memory frequency — as much as 7,008 MHz! And the maximum resolution of this most powerful machine is 8K: there is where to accelerate.

However, her competitor from MSI immediately gives her answer to «Gigabyte». The decisive difference is that MSI offers a really impressive 1404 / 1518 MHz versus 1379 / 1493 MHz in the offer of the previous company.

It’s worth knowing: What to do if your laptop gets water or other liquid: 8 steps to prevent trouble : The innovative Super Alloy Power II maintains efficiency and keeps the device cool even under heavy loads. And Auto-Extreme automated manufacturing improves board performance over earlier GTX versions, taking the board to a whole new level. The card from ASUS most often appears in the lists of recommendations: after tests, questions about which brand is better to advise disappear immediately.

Among the obvious advantages of NVidia boards in reviews and reviews, they usually highlight:

top-notch performance;

efficient and fairly quiet cooler;

is equipped with a VR capable system.

Helpful: Lenovo ThinkPad series overview: 9 laptop series, monitors, keyboards, mice

AMD Radeon RX 560

gamers who are just getting acquainted with the wonderful world of PC gaming, and for those who are just looking for a budget device with decent performance.

For example, this graphics accelerator from Asus offers its users to enjoy a picture with a resolution of up to 5K. The GPU is overclocked to 1197 MHz, and the RAM is 2 or 3 gigabytes.

MSI, also engaged in the production of video cards, goes even further with the RX 560 — the maximum resolution reaches right up to 7680×4320, which allows you to include the most top-end displays in the assembly.

Read also: World of Warcraft: Legion – can you stand against the Legion?

And this same board from Gigabyte combines the advantages of the previous ones, packing them into an ideal design with the amazing Windforce 2X Cooling System. In addition, it has the most convenient type of memory today — gDDR 5. Its important difference is special fans, which, thanks to the original design, are able to cool the video card 23% better than in previous models.

The advantages of this model are hard to miss:

original and more efficient cooling system;

is more compact than the y GTX;

The

supports AMD CrossFireX technology, which allows the player to harness the power of multiple video controllers simultaneously to create a 3D experience.

There is only one drawback: there is a slight noise during the hard work of the cooler, in contrast to the silent GTX.

See also: Monoblock or computer: choice of 2 options

Finally, an article about two favorites — a table with the key features of both boards: Desktop) by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Specifications, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions, requirements, API support, Memory, Technology support. Analysis of video card performance by benchmarks: PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark, Geekbench — OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T -Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score.

AMD Radeon RX 560

vs

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop)

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 AERO ITX 2G OC

GeForce GTX 1050 series graphics cards are already very familiar to us. This model was introduced almost a year ago, and a very interesting price/performance ratio allowed it to stay in the recommended entry-level gaming configurations for a long time.

Video card manufacturers offer a wide variety of GP107-based adapters. The most affordable options in this case are of maximum interest. The GTX 1050 allows you to get a “combat-ready” platform for minimal money, so the additional costs here are very painful. Massive cooling systems with a branched design of heat pipes and additional illumination increase the cost of the device. If the budget is limited, then it is quite possible to get by with a simpler modification.

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 AERO ITX 2G OC Graphics cards for

Notify when available

For our material, we used one of the most affordable models in its class — MSI GeForce GTX 1050 AERO ITX 2G OC. In addition to a modest price tag (~3700 UAH, $140), the adapter is interesting due to its very compact dimensions. By the abbreviation ITX in the name, it is easy to assume that this model should fit into the mini-ITX motherboard format, that is, the length of the device will not exceed 170 mm. But the developers even exceeded the plan, offering a video card only 155 mm long.

GPU is factory overclocked. The base frequency of the GPU is increased to 1404 MHz with an average acceleration value of 1519 MHz, while the frequency formula for the reference GTX 1050 is 1354/1455 MHz. The 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on board run at the recommended 7008 MHz.

The video card comes in a medium size box. There is nothing extraordinary in the kit — a quick installation guide, a disk with drivers and software, as well as a registration coupon.

The adapter has a two-slot layout, the top of the shorty is covered with a black plastic casing with decorative segment inserts made in carbon look.

For cooling, the original cooler of a simple design is used, which is based on a solid aluminum block with additional plate fins, which is blown by one 90 mm axial-type fan.

A two-pin connector is used to connect the fan, so rotation speed monitoring is not provided.

The printed circuit board is 150 mm long. Power stabilizer subsystem 4-phase. Additional cooling is not provided for cooling power assemblies. It uses 4 GDDR5 memory chips from Samsung (K4G41325FE-HC28) with a recommended operating frequency of 7000 MHz.

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 AERO ITX 2G OC does not require additional power. GeForce GTX 1050 video cards have a declared TDP of 75 W, which allows you to get by with the capabilities of the PCI Express x16 slot. The top models of the line are still often equipped with a 6-pin connector, but if you do not plan serious experiments with overclocking, then the resources of the basic PCI-E connector will be enough. For a PC with a GeForce GTX 1050, a 300W PSU is recommended.

The MSI GeForce GTX 1050 AERO ITX 2G OC interface panel has three digital video outputs — full-length HDMI and DisplayPort, as well as DVI-D (Dual Link). All connectors are lined up in one tier. Almost half of the plug is occupied by a grill to remove heated air outside the system unit. At the same time, the name of the manufacturer is carved on the plate. The video output connectors are initially covered with plastic caps — a simple and effective way to protect the connectors from dust accumulation when the video outputs are not used.

The video card can display images on three screens simultaneously, and also supports NVIDIA G-Sync synchronization technology.

In idle mode, the GPU temperature is kept at 30C. The fan does not stop. Unfortunately, there is no way to explicitly track the rotation speed. Subjectively, it is at the level of 1100–1200 rpm, which corresponds to 35% of the maximum value. Under load at the peak, the temperature increased to 67C. Turnovers increased slightly, but, again, without specifics. We can assume that we are talking about 1500-1700 rpm. The noise level increases somewhat, but even in this case the cooler operates quite quietly. According to GPU-Z indicators, under load, the GPU supply voltage does not exceed 1.05 V. We note the aggressive algorithm of the GPU Boost mechanism. The chip was automatically accelerated up to 1822 MHz. Well, well, a worthy representative of its series, which can be used for a general assessment of the capabilities of the GeForce GTX 1050.

NVidia GeForce GTX 1050

The GTX 1050 gaming graphics card has earned its share of praise in the gaming community. Its characteristics are pleasantly surprising, but at the same time it remains in the budget category. The video card is produced under different brands and in different configurations, so before you buy this card, you should pay attention to getting to know each of the options.

Actual to know: Should I buy a PS4 in 2021 or wait for the PlayStation 5?

The board from «Gigabyte» immediately impresses with its numbers: its memory capacity corresponds to two thousand «meters»; bit depth — 128 bits; memory frequency — as much as 7,008 MHz! And the maximum resolution of this most powerful machine is 8K: there is where to accelerate.

However, her competitor from MSI immediately gives her answer to «Gigabyte». The decisive difference is that MSI offers a really impressive 1404 / 1518 MHz versus 1379 / 1493 MHz in the offer of the previous company.

It’s worth knowing: What to do if your laptop gets water or other liquid: 8 steps to prevent trouble : The innovative Super Alloy Power II maintains efficiency and keeps the device cool even under heavy loads. And Auto-Extreme automated manufacturing improves board performance over earlier GTX versions, taking the board to a whole new level. The card from ASUS most often appears in the lists of recommendations: after tests, questions about which brand is better to advise disappear immediately.

Among the obvious advantages of NVidia boards in reviews and reviews, they usually highlight:

top-notch performance;

efficient and fairly quiet cooler;

is equipped with a VR capable system. Useful: Lenovo ThinkPad series overview: 9 series of laptops, monitors, keyboards, mice based on the Polaris 21 chip in which all 1024 computing units are activated instead of 8 75 75
Like its main green rival, the Radeon RX 560 uses a 128-bit memory access bus, while using GDDR5 with virtually the same effective operating frequency of 7000 MHz. In both cases, this provides a bandwidth between the GPU and memory at the level of 112 GB / s. At the same time, the Radeon RX 560 can be offered with both 2 GB and 4 GB of memory, while the GTX 1050 is limited to only 2 GB versions. For video cards based on Polaris 21, a thermal package of 75 watts is declared.

MSI Radeon RX 560 AERO ITX 4G OC Graphics cards based on

Notify when available

Expecting to use the strengths of the Radeon RX 560, for our experiments we chose a modification with twice the amount of local RAM — MSI Radeon RX 560 AERO ITX 4G OC. Video card manufacturers offer a relatively modest range of models based on the Radeon RX 560. Often these are only 2-3 modifications with different memory sizes. MSI is no exception here either. The manufacturer offers a pair of AERO ITX adapters with 2 GB and 4 GB of memory, as well as an exclusive of its kind — the original low-profile version with different amounts of local RAM. As it turned out, first-tier manufacturers do not offer the Radeon RX 560 in LP format, so for the smallest systems this option may turn out to be uncontested. We were primarily interested in the standard version of the adapter.

MSI Radeon RX 560 AERO ITX 4G OC at first glance is very difficult to distinguish from the GeForce GTX 1050 from the same series. Of course, there are nuances in the details, but outwardly it is the same very compact video card with a length of 155 millimeters.

For the Radeon RX 560, the recommended GPU clock speed is a variable. Video card manufacturers often follow two tactics. Either the adapters are equipped with an additional power connector, setting the standard frequency limits at 1275+ MHz, or they offer more economical versions without an additional power connector, but with a slightly lower frequency (1175–1215 MHz). For MSI Radeon RX 560 AERO ITX 4G OC, the second approach is used. GPU accelerates up to 119 under load6 MHz, while GDDR5 memory runs at the recommended 7000 MHz.

The Radeon RX 560 was generally very difficult to market. The model was introduced in April, however, video cards began to appear on sale closer to June, just before the start of the active phase of the «cryptocurrency fever». Barely released novelties also fell into the sphere of interests of diggers, because the fabulous starting prices excluded the RX 560 from gaming configurations. No joke, in mid-June, the MSI Radeon RX 560 AERO ITX 4G OC went on sale for about $260. Now the situation with availability and price has changed significantly. Modification with 4 GB of memory is offered from 3900 UAH (~$150), that is, the video card costs only a little more than the most affordable modifications of the GeForce GTX 1050 2 GB. It should be noted that in general, the market also has versions of the Radeon RX 560 with 2 GB, the price of which starts from UAH 3150. (~$120).

As for the MSI Radeon RX 560 AERO ITX 4G OC directly, the video card comes in a box, the volume of which is about half that for the GeForce GTX 1050 package. A funny nuance, given the almost identical dimensions and weight of the video cards, as well as their packaging .

We have already mentioned the external similarity, so we will not repeat simple design techniques.

The cooling system is also very similar, although not without nuances in the details.

First of all, we note that the radiator block hidden under the plastic casing is slightly larger here and has a large dispersion area.

In addition, pay attention to the increased thickness of the aluminum base profile. At the same time, as can be seen in the photo, to connect 9The 0mm fan uses a 4-pin connector, which means it should be possible to monitor the actual rotational speed.

The Radeon RX 560 PCB is even shorter than the GTX 1050 PCB — 143mm instead of 150mm. Curiously, the dimensions of the GP107 and Polaris 21 chips are very similar. The GPU for the GTX 1050 has an area of 132 mm² and contains 3.3 ppm. transistors, against 123 mm² and 3 billion for the AMD processor.

Despite the similar dimensions, the layout of the board has little in common with the solution for NVIDIA chips. The power subsystem is also 4-phase. At the same time, Micron D9 memory chips are used for the video card.SXD (MT51J256M32HF-70). There are also four of them, but the capacity of each is twice as large — 8 Mbps.

As we have already mentioned, the graphics card does not require additional power. However, despite the identical TPD of 75 W, the manufacturer recommends equipping a system with a Radeon RX 560 with a power supply unit with a capacity of 400 W or more.

The equipment of the interface panel is identical to that of the related GTX 1050. There are three video outputs — HDMI, DisplayPort and DVI-D (Dual Layer). The shape and structure of the vents is also similar, and the connectors are initially plugged with protective plastic caps. The graphics card also allows you to use all three video outputs simultaneously and supports AMD FreeSync image synchronization technology.

It is also possible to combine two Radeon RX 560 video cards into a CrossFire bundle with synchronization via PCI Express. However, in practice, a configuration with a pair of entry-level graphics adapters is almost impossible to meet — there are a lot of related nuances, and the efficiency is lower than that of a single higher-class video card.

Returning to the MSI Radeon RX 560 AERO ITX 4G OC, we note that in idle mode, the GPU temperature is kept at 34C with a fan speed of about 1100 rpm.

Under load, the temperature of the chip increased to 78 degrees, and the fan speed gradually increased to 1400 rpm. At the same time, subjectively, the Radeon RX 560 worked a little quieter than the GTX 1050. In any case, there is a large margin for increasing the speed, so if you want to improve the CO efficiency, you can increase the speed using the MSI Afterburner application.

During the test stages, the frequency of the GPU did not exceed the specified 1196 MHz. The manufacturer focused on the efficiency of the device, and therefore the GPU supply voltage at the peak barely reached 1 V. Assessing the speed performance, it is worth considering the peculiarity of the video card model in question. More expensive tuned versions of the Radeon RX 560 with an auxiliary power connector can initially offer 1300+ MHz.

During the tests, we used graphics quality settings at which video cards of this level can provide 40-60 fps, allowing for relatively comfortable gaming. In most cases, these are medium quality modes, although a lot depends on the specific game. Sometimes you can raise the bar, and occasionally, on the contrary, you will have to lower the quality of the picture.

Synthetics from Futuremark prefer the GeForce GTX 1050. However, if in the Fire Strike test the difference is about 10%, then already in Time Spy with DirectX 12 support, the situation is almost evened out.

In Tom Clancy’s The Division, the GeForce GTX 1050 also has a slight advantage, but the minimum fps here is slightly higher for the Radeon RX 560. Very close performance of both video cards in Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.

A noticeably quicker adapter with an NVIDIA chip appears in Far Cry, Thief, Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. 15% is already a noticeable difference. Note that already old Thieft allows you to use the Mantle API, which is supported by AMD video cards. However, its activation brought the Radeon RX 560 only an additional 1-2 frames / s.

Rise Of Tomb Raider doesn’t show a winner, except that the Radeon RX 560, thanks to the increased memory capacity, has slightly more minimal results. In situations where the difference in performance is small, I would like to remind you once again that in normal modes the tested GeForce GTX 1050 has a base + 50 MHz to the recommended value, while the frequency of the Radeon RX 560 chip does not reach 80 MHz to be able to work without an additional power connector.

iD Software was the first to propose a massive Vulkan project. This generic API can be used by both GeForce and Radeon. At the same time, AMD-based models reveal their potential better. However, apart from DOOM, there are no big projects with Vulkan yet.

In the mode used, the game required about 2700 MB of video card memory, and this is another reason why the minimum frame / s is noticeably higher for the Radeon RX 560 4 GB.

Turn-based strategies can also be resource-intensive and not an easy task, especially for entry-level gaming graphics cards. Civilization VI is an example of this. As you can see, this is another clear victory for the Radeon RX 560.

Despite a very good single-player campaign, Battlefield 1 is still primarily an online shooter with large-scale maps and 64 players on the battlefield. There is no built-in benchmark in the game, and the scripted sequence would hardly correctly reflect the situation during a real network battle. This greatly complicates the correct comparison of the capabilities of two video cards. What happens on the screen cannot be repeated. However, we still decided to present the data obtained from the results of measuring the number of frames / s after passing matches on the maps «Giant’s Shadow» and «Sinai Desert», using a preset with high graphics quality.

The performance of the GeForce GTX 1050 and Radeon RX 560 in both cases turned out to be surprisingly close — about 50-53 fps on average with drawdowns of up to 40 fps. For such a dynamic shooter, I would like to have better responsiveness, the case when this is very important. You can also put up with the resulting performance, but in order to eliminate the confining «viscosity» in the most crucial moments, you should use more gentle graphics settings. Using a preset with medium quality, we managed to increase the average fps to 70–75, and the minimum to almost 60 fps.

Note that when using the Radeon RX 560, the game easily consumed 3. 3-3.5 GB of memory, although in fact this did not bring obvious advantages to the model on the AMD chip. On the other hand, it is possible that 4 GB allowed the Radeon RX 560 to not yield to the GTX 1050 in Battlefield 1. The appetite for games should be taken into account by owners of systems with 8 GB of RAM.

Power consumption

GeForce GTX 1050 and Radeon RX 560 have the same TDP of 75W. However, the TDP value is not an indication of the actual power consumption of the graphics card.

In practice, under the same conditions, the system with the RX 560 consumed an average of 10-15 watts more. That is, there is a difference, but in general it is not very large. Both video cards are very economical. 130-150W under gaming load is a great overall performance for a PC based on Core i7-7700K, 16GB DDR4-2666 and a pair of SSDs.

Benefits

Reasons to choose AMD Radeon RX 560

Newer graphics card, release date difference 5 month(s)

1221. 2 times faster texturing speed: 81.60 GTexel/s vs 66.82 GTexel/s

33% more shader processors: 1024 vs 768

1000 times faster memory speed: 7000 MHz vs 7 GB /s

2.6 times better performance in Geekbench — OpenCL benchmark: 57671 vs 21978

2.9 times better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) benchmark: 71.844 vs 24.718
7

About 28% faster core clock: 1392 MHz vs 1090-1175 MHz

16% faster core clock in Boost mode: 1392 MHz vs 1200-1275 MHz

822.3 times faster floating point performance : 2,138 gflops vs 2.6 TFLOPs

Approximately 7% less power consumption: 75 Watt vs 60-80 Watt

Approximately 74% more PassMark — G3D Mark performance: 6342 vs 3639

Approx. G2D Mark performance — G2D Mark 27% more: 639vs 505

Approximately 33% more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s): 75. 729 vs 57.018

Approximately 9% improvement in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 840.417 vs 771.722

About 10% more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s): 5.067 vs 4.612

About 14% more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) : 292.876 vs 257.37

Approximately 29% increase in GFXBench 4.0 benchmark — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8496 vs 6571

Approximately 29% increase in GFXBench 4.0 benchmark — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) performance: 8496 vs 6527
Performance in 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score about 27% better: 2360 vs 1856

As for the reviewed models from the MSI AERO line, these are very compact video cards with efficient and fairly quiet cooling systems. In the case of the GTX 1050, you can complain about the inability to monitor the fan speed, and the RX 560 is slightly frequency limited for the sake of better economy. In general, the shortcomings are not critical and are fully compensated by the very attractive price of video cards.

Specs

Core Clock
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 75.729 vs 57.018

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 840.417 vs 771.722

CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 5.067 vs 4.612

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 292.876 vs 257.37

GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 AERO ITX 2G OC Notify when available GPU 1

GPU 2

4462
PassMark — G2D Mark GPU 1 292

Geekbench — OpenCL GPU 1 18183

CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) GPU 1 67.209

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) GPU 1 0721 623.187

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) GPU 1 4.536 CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) GPU 1 30.523

30.402

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) GPU 1 223.683

62.233

GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) GPU 1 7250 GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) GPU 1 3718 GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) GPU 1 3359 GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) GPU 1 7250 GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Fps) GPU 1 3718 GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) GPU 1 CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 799.414 623.187 CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 4.536 2.201 CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 30.523 30.402 CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 223.683 62.233 GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 7250 3754 GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) 3718 3667 GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) 3359 3332 GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 7250 3754 GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 3718 3667 GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps) 3359

AMD Radeon RX 560

versus

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook)

Benefits

Reasons to choose AMD Radeon RX 560

Newer graphics card, 2 month(s) difference in release dates 4024

texture speed : 81.60 GTexel / s vs 77.76 GTexel / s
33% more shader processors: 1024 vs 768

A newer manufacturing process for the video card allows it to be more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 14 nm vs 16 nm

About 57% better performance in PassMark — G2D Mark benchmark: 506 vs 323

2.6 times better performance in Geekbench — OpenCL benchmark: 57671 vs 21864

Performance in CompuBench 1.5ames — Video Composition benchmark /s) 2.6 times more: 64.428 vs 24.676

Release date 18 April 2017 vs 1 February 2017

Texturing speed 81. 60 GTexel/s vs 77.76 GTexel/s

Number of shaders 1024 vs 768

Process 14 nm vs 16 nm

PassMark — G2D Mark 506 vs 323

Geekbench — OpenCL 57671 vs 21864

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 64.428 vs 24.676

GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) 3688 vs 3687

GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) 3352 vs 3336

GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 3688 vs 3687

GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps) 3352 vs 3336

Reasons to choose NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook)

About 37% faster core clock: 1493 MHz vs 1090-1175 MHz

35% faster core clock in Boost mode: 1620 MHz vs 1200-1275 MHz

956.9 times faster floating point performance : 2,488 gflops vs 2.6 TFLOPs

About 7% less power consumption: 75 Watt vs 60-80 Watt

About 64% more performance in PassMark — G3D Mark benchmark: 5919 vs 3602

Performance in CompuBench1 — Desktop1 benchmark Detection (mPixels/s) about 33% more: 75.758 vs 56.81

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) about 9% faster: 843.503 vs 775.281

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) about 10% faster: 5.071 vs 4.602

Performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) about 17% more: 301.168 vs 257.062

Performance in GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) benchmark by about 29% more: 8496 vs 6571

About 29% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8496 vs 6571

About 28% more performance in 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score: 2340 vs 1833

Core frequency 1493 MHz vs 1090-1175 MHz

Boost core clock 1620 MHz vs 1200-1275 MHz

Floating point performance 2.488 gflops vs 2.6 TFLOPs

Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt vs 60-80 Watt

Memory frequency 7008 MHz vs 7000 MHz

PassMark — G3D Mark 5919 vs 3602

CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 75.758 vs 56.81

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 843.503 vs 775.281

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 5.071 vs 4.602

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 301.168 vs 257.062

GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 8496 vs 6571

GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 8496 vs 6571

3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score 2340 vs 1833

Benchmark comparison

GPU 1: AMD Radeon RX 560
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook)

PassMark — G3D Mark

GPU 1

GPU 2

PassMark — G2D Mark

GPU 1

GPU 2

Geekbench — OpenCL

GPU 1

GPU 2

CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)

GPU 1

GPU 2

75.758

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)

GPU 1

GPU 2

775.281

843.503

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)

GPU 1

GPU 2

CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)

GPU 1

GPU 2

64.428

24.676

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)

GPU 1

GPU 2

257.062

301.168

GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames)

GPU 1

GPU 2

GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps)

GPU 1

GPU 2

3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score

GPU 1

GPU 2

Name AMD Radeon RX 560 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook)

PassMark — G3D Mark 3602 5919

PassMark — G2D Mark 506 323

Geekbench — OpenCL 57671 21864

CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 56.81 75.758

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 775.281 843.503

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 4.602 5.071

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 64.428 24.676

CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 257.062 301.168

GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 6571 8496

GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) 3688 3687

GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) 3352 3336

GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 6571 8496

GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 3688 3687

GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) 3352 3336

3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score 1833 2340

Feature comparison

conveyors

AMD Radeon RX 560 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Notebook)

Architecture GCN 4. 0 Pascal

Codename Polaris 21 GP106B

Design Radeon RX 500 Series

Generation GCN 4th Gen

Production date April 18, 2017 February 1, 2017

Price at first issue date $99

Place in the rating 392 434

Price now $104. 99

Type Desktop, Laptop Laptop

Price/performance ratio (0-100) 54.35

Boost core clock 1200-1275 MHz 1620 MHz

Number of Compute 14/16

Core frequency 1090-1175MHz 1493 MHz

Floating point performance 2.6 TFLOPs 2.488 gflops

Process 14nm 16nm

Number of shaders 1024 768

Pixel fill rate 20. 40 GP/s

Render output units 16

Stream Processors 896/1024

Texturing speed 81.60 GTexel/s 77.76 GTexel/s

Texture Units 64

Power consumption (TDP) 60-80 Watt 75 Watt

Number of transistors 3,000 million 4,400 million

Video connectors 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort No outputs

DisplayPort support

Dual-link DVI support

HDMI

VGA

G-SYNC support

CrossFire without bridge

Interface PCIe 3. 0 x8 PCIe 3.0 x16

Length 170mm

Recommended power supply 450 Watt

Additional power connectors None

Notebook size large

DirectX 12 12.0 (12_1)

OpenCL 2.0

OpenGL 4.5 4. 6

Vulcan

Maximum memory size 4GB 4GB

Memory bandwidth 112 GB/s 112.1 GB/s

Memory bus width 128bit 128 Bit

Memory frequency 7000MHz 7008MHz

Memory type GDDR5 GDDR5

Shared memory 0

4K h364 Decode

4K h364 Encode

AMD Eyefinity

AMD Radeon™ Chill

AMD Radeon™ ReLive

AppAcceleration

CrossFire

FreeSync

h365/HEVC Decode

h365/HEVC Encode

HDMI 4K Support

LiquidVR

PowerTune

TrueAudio

Unified Video Decoder (UVD)

Video Code Engine (VCE)

Virtual Super Resolution (VSR)

Multi-monitor support

Multi-Projection

Comparison AMD Radeon RX 560 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti which is better?

General information

Price-quality ratio

The sum of all the advantages of the device divided by its price. The more%, the better the quality per unit price in comparison with all analogues.

62.7%

3% (5%) better than
59.7%

Architecture

GCN 4.0 Pascal

Codename

Polaris 21 GP107

Type

Desktop Desktop

Release price

$99

-40 $ (-28.8%) better than
139 $

Number of shaders

1024

256 (33.3%) better than
768

Core frequency

1175MHz 1291 MHz

At 116 MHz (9.9%) better than

Boost frequency

1275 MHz 1392 MHz

At 117 MHz (9. 2%) better than

Number of transistors

3.000 million 3.300 million

Process

14 nm 14 nm

Interface

PCIe 3.0 x8 PCIe 3.0 x16

Power Demand (TDP)

Calculated thermal power shows the average heat dissipation in load operation,
the larger the value, the more the requirements for cooling and power consumption increase.

75W 75 W

Length

170 mm 145 mm

Additional power connectors

no no

G-SYNC Ready

NVIDIA G-SYNC technology delivers a smooth gaming experience with variable refresh rates and the elimination of visual artifacts.

Multi Monitor

n/a +

3D Vision

n/a +

VR Ready

Technology from NVIDIA that gives manufacturers access to Multi res Shading, Context Priority, and GPU Direct virtual reality technologies.

n/a +

Vulkan

NVIDIA’s Vulkan technology allows developers to gain low-level access to the GPU to optimize graphics commands (better than OpenGL and Direct3D APIs).
It is an open, free, cross-platform standard available for all platforms.

n/a +

CUDA

The CUDA architecture enables applications that are optimized for
parallel computing. For example, for the development and design of neural networks.

Multi-Projection

NVIDIA’s Multi-Projection technology improves graphics card performance when building virtual worlds. Images for the left and right eyes are calculated simultaneously.

n/a +

Maximum temperature

n/a 97 °C

Ansel

Decred / DCR (Decred)

n/a 1.01 Gh/s

Zcash / ZEC (Equihash)

n/a 1 Sol/s

Number of CUDA cores

A large number of CUDA cores improve performance in graphics computing,
especially affect anti-aliasing and lighting in games, the speed of training neural networks.

n/a 768

Video connectors

1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort

DirectX

12 (12_0) 12 (12_1)

Floating point performance

2. 611 gflops 2.138 gflops

Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto)

n/a 12.62 Mh/s

Memory

Memory type

GDDR5 GDDR5

Maximum memory

Large video memory allows you to run demanding games with lots of textures,
use high resolution monitors, provide more opportunities for cryptocurrency mining.

4 GB 4 GB

Memory bus width

The wider the video memory bus, the more data is transferred to the GPU per unit of time and the better performance in demanding games.

128 bit 128 bit

Shared memory

n/a —

Memory frequency

A high memory frequency has a positive effect on the speed of a video card with a large amount of data.

7000 MHz 7008 MHz

At 8 MHz (0.099999999999994%) better than

Memory bandwidth

The greater the data transfer bandwidth, the more effective RAM the PC can use.

112 112

Geforce gtx 1050 or radeon rx 560 • Web cheat sheet for internet entrepreneurs! Home » Computers » Geforce gtx 1050 or radeon rx 560

Author:
admin

|

12/16/2019

Contents

1 ⇡#Test results

2 ⇡#Radeon RX 560 and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti versus GeForce GTX 1650

3 ⇡#Radeon RX 570 versus GeForce GTX 1060 and GeForce GTX 1660

4 980 vs all

4.1 View queue

4.2 View queue

5 YouTube Premium

5.1 Do you want to save this video?

5.2 Report a video?

5.3 Did you like it?

5.4 Didn’t like it?

6 Video text

6. 1 Recommended reading

Here is a comparison of the new AMD Radeon RX 560 graphics card with its close competitors: AMD Radeon RX 460 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 in Full HD resolution.

First, let’s introduce our heroes. The honor of the new generation will be defended by the ROG Strix Radeon RX 560 OC edition with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, factory overclocking and a dual-fan cooling system.

Its opponent in the internal model range is the 4-gigabyte ROG STRIX RX 460, which uses a similar cooler design, but loses to the new product both in terms of the number of structural blocks in the GPU and in terms of the frequency formula.

The external competitor is the ASUS Expedition GeForce GTX 1050 adapter with a simplified cooler design without heat pipes. The frequency formula of its GPU and 2 GB of GDDR5 memory is at the reference level.

In order not to limit the capabilities of video cards, we used our top stand based on Intel Core i7-6700K. And to bypass the HDCP protection of digital content and avoid performance losses when recording gameplay, we assembled a cascade of video capture devices from AverMedia.

Intel Core i7-6700K (OC 4.5 GHz)

Thermaltake Water 3.0 Riing RGB 240

ASUS MAXIMUS VIII RANGER

2×8 GB DDR4-3200 G.SKILL Tr >

Let’s start with Deus Ex Mankind Divided at a high graphics preset, which loads all three configurations well. Nevertheless, the GeForce GTX 1050 feels very confident. According to the minimum indicator, it was she who took the lead with a result of 21 FPS. Next comes the Radeon RX 460 with 12 fps and the Radeon RX 560 with 8. But in terms of average, the new AMD takes the lead with a result of 35 FPS. The GeForce GTX 1050 is 5% behind, while the Radeon RX 460 is 12% behind.

The high profile in Rise of the Tomb Raider requires about 3 GB of VRAM in places, so the GeForce GTX 1050 has to use more RAM. As a result, the Radeon RX 560 took the clear first place with an average of 49 FPS and drawdowns of up to 31. The NVIDIA representative lagged behind by almost 4% in the average and 17% in the minimum. And the predecessor was behind by 5 and 26%, respectively.

We already know well that Far Cry Primal from Ubisoft is more favorable towards NVIDIA products. Therefore, the launched test with a high profile of graphics settings was not particularly surprising in that it raised the GeForce GTX 1050 to the lead with an average result of 49 FPS and drawdowns of up to 44. The Radeon RX 560 produced 46 and 42 fps, respectively, and the Radeon RX 460 — 44 and 40 fps. The gap between the first and the leader is estimated at 5-6%, and the second — at 9-10%.

For Honor is another project from Ubisoft, and another clear win for NVIDIA. With a very high preset, he gave out an average of 43 FPS with drawdowns up to 30. The new product from AMD was 3-8% behind with 39and 29 fps, respectively. The gap between the leader and the Radeon RX 460 already reaches 14-19%.

Ghost Recon Wildlands couldn’t pick a clear favorite at the medium preset, even though it requires over 2GB of VRAM, so the GeForce GTX 1050 was in a losing situation. In terms of average frequency, the first place is occupied by the Radeon RX 560 with an indicator of 41 FPS. The representative of NVIDIA lagged behind by 9%, and the internal competitor — by 16%. But in terms of minimum speed, the GeForce GTX 1050 already takes the crown with a result of 30 FPS. The gap from the Radeon RX 560 reaches 3%, while the Radeon RX 460 is kept behind by 20%.

It’s no secret that the Rainbow Six Siege favors AMD Polaris. And this is best manifested by the minimum frame rate. The Radeon RX 560 delivered around 59 FPS, the Radeon RX 460 around 53, and the GTX 1050 only 36, although FPS Monitor only registers a drawdown of up to 50 fps. But according to the average indicator, the representative of NVIDIA wedged between AMD video cards with a result of 66 FPS, while the new product scored 71, and its predecessor — 65 fps.

We observed an even more interesting situation in GTA V with very high texture and shader quality. The benchmark requires more than 2 GB of VRAM, which could cause the GeForce GTX 1050 to freeze up to 11 FPS, although it has the highest average at 90 fps. In second place was the Radeon RX 560 with a score of 73 FPS and drawdowns of up to 53. The last is the Radeon RX 460 with 71 and 50 FPS, respectively.

To launch The Third Witcher used a medium graphics preset and a high post-processing profile. In the city, the Radeon RX 560 and GeForce GTX 1050 averaged 47 fps each. However, the leadership goes to the representative of NVIDIA, because the minimum indicator is higher — 41 versus 36 FPS. The Radeon RX 460 is slightly behind with 44 and 36 FPS respectively.

The story campaign of Battlefield 1 turned out to be comfortable on all three systems at medium graphics settings. The difference in performance is small, but it is still there. The first place was taken by the GeForce GTX 1050. On average, it delivered 66 FPS with drawdowns up to 58. The Radeon RX 560 lagged behind it by 3% with 64 and 56 fps, respectively. The predecessor has 60 and 53 FPS or 9% less than the leader.

In PUBG , even at low settings, video memory consumption tends to 2 GB, and if in the house this does not particularly affect the performance of the GeForce GTX 1050, then cross-country runs squandered its FPS to 11 frames / s. But 4-gigabyte video cards felt more confident, giving out at least 40 frames / s. In terms of average speed, the GeForce GTX 1050 again takes the lead with 63 FPS. The Radeon RX 560 has 57 fps, while the Radeon RX 460 has 49.

And we finish the test session in DOOM in Vulkan mode at a high profile. Recall that in OpenGL RX 560 gave an average of 57 FPS with drawdowns up to 43. Now we have an average of 75 with drawdowns up to 64, that is, 32-49% more. The second place was predicted for the Radeon RX 460 with the results of 72 and 63 fps, and the third was the GeForce GTX 1050 with an average of 67 FPS and drawdowns up to 47.

As a result, the situation turned out to be very interesting. Based on the average of 5 tests, the Radeon RX 560 was the leader, the other 5 favored the GeForce GTX 1050, and another one scored a draw. Parity is also obtained when calculating the average difference between these video cards. But at the minimum, the Radeon RX 560 is out of competition due to the failures of the GeForce GTX 1050 in GTA V, Rainbow Six Siege, PUBG and DOOM.

As for comparing the novelty with its predecessor, due to the larger number of structural blocks in the composition of the GPU and its higher frequency, the Radeon RX 560 is on average 9% better in the average video sequence speed and 6% in the minimum one.

As a result, if the prices for these video cards were close to the recommended ones, then the Radeon RX 560 looks the best. Then comes the GeForce GTX 1050 and closes the top three with the Radeon RX 460. The GTX 1050 is on average $20 cheaper than the Radeon RX 560, so it will be the best buy among these models.

Valery Kosikhin

June 24, 2019

⇡#

Test results
Considering that the cost of the most expensive and cheapest devices in this test differ by almost two times, the task of analyzing the results is not reduced to finding an absolute leader. In order to understand the resulting array of data and identify local favorites and outsiders among video cards, we will divide the comparison participants into several groups — starting with economical (and, accordingly, weak) offers and ending with affordable representatives of the middle price category — and comment on the alignment of forces in each of them separately.

⇡#

Radeon RX 560 and GeForce GTX 1050 Ti versus GeForce GTX 1650
red opponent. Only the game Tom Clancy’s The Division 2 stands out from the general trend, in which the Radeon RX 560 took the lead. During the time that accelerators based on Polaris chips have lived on the market, AMD has significantly optimized drivers and entered into new alliances with game studios, but this is absolutely not enough to compensate for the gap between the Radeon RX 560 and the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti — the latter has a 15% advantage in terms of average ratio of test data. However, none of the other graphics cards in any case match the 60 FPS performance level around which the methodology of this review is built, and only in Overwatch did the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti overcome the set bar.

The main group of testers has a sharp increase in performance compared to economy-class video cards, but before shifting focus to more powerful devices, it is worth paying attention to the latest of NVIDIA’s Turing-based new products — the GeForce GTX 1650. Unlike most other models of the GeForce GTX 16 or GeForce RTX 20 series that we have dealt with so far, the GeForce GTX 1650 has no direct analogue among video cards based on Pascal chips. This is a lonely column halfway between the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti and the GeForce GTX 1060. If the choice is between the GTX 1050 Ti, on the one hand, and the GTX 1650, on the other, then the latter is certainly preferable, because it has an average advantage of 35% . However, even the Radeon RX 570 with 4 GB of local memory turned out to be another 11% faster (GTX 1650 leads only in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey and DiRT Rally 2.0) — at first glance, this is not much, but the younger Turing’s main problems are not at all with speed, but with the price, and we will discuss this in the end of the article.

⇡#

Radeon RX 570 versus GeForce GTX 1060 and GeForce GTX 1660
dense group, where the results of the strongest opponent differ from the results of the outsider by only 16%. It’s not hard to guess the factor that caused such dissimilar products as two variants of the GeForce GTX 1060, two Radeon RX 570s and, in addition, the Radeon RX 580 to stray into a heap — test settings focused on the speed of budget GPUs leveled out differences in local memory.

But does this mean that 3 GB of RAM, like the younger version of the GeForce GTX 1060, is enough for a video card in 2019? Not really, because in some tests, which a full-fledged GeForce GTX 1060 with 6 GB of RAM passed with a significant margin in frame rate at high graphics quality settings, its 3 GB “cut” faced great difficulties. So, in Battlefield V, a twofold difference in memory means for two GeForce GTX 1060 configurations a difference between 50 and 81 FPS in average frame rates and, accordingly, a huge gap in the lower value of the instantaneous frame rate. In Tom Clancy’s The Division 2, everything is even more clear: the older model scored 71 FPS, and the younger one — 33, and even the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti with 4 GB of memory was ahead of the cut-down GeForce GTX 1060 by 2 FPS in this test.

But the current and future owners of accelerators with 4 GB of RAM can sleep peacefully for now: two modifications of the Radeon RX 570, which do not differ from each other either in the GPU configuration or in the frequencies under load, but only in the amount of RAM — 4 or 8 GB , received exactly the same scores in most of the test games. Overwatch was the only exception, but even here the difference in average frame rate lies within a few FPS. And if so, then there is no reason to assume that the older modification of the GeForce GTX 1060 received any advantage over the Radeon RX 570 with 4 GB of memory due to 6 GB of RAM.

You might think that these observations do not agree with what we wrote earlier when we criticized the GeForce GTX 1650 for lack of RAM, but we recall that this test is carried out according to a lightweight method. The Radeon RX 570 and even the GeForce GTX 1650 have enough headroom to move to more aggressive graphics settings, and then the lack of RAM will play a role, if not today, then tomorrow, when game developers begin to accept 8 GB of memory as the standard.

Now that the topic of local memory is closed for a while, we can return to the average performance ratings for various configurations of the GeForce GTX 1060, Radeon RX 570 and Radeon RX 580. As we have already noted above, the current state of affairs with drivers and optimization of game engines is much more favorable for video cards based on Polaris chips than three years ago. The distance between the Radeon RX 570 and the GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB has almost disappeared. In turn, the Radeon RX 580 and GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB are equivalent in terms of average frame rates. Nevertheless, the architecture of the Polaris 20 and GP106 chips that underlie these accelerators differs significantly, and rival video cards keep changing positions in individual games.

The status of the GeForce GTX 1660 among the test participants does not need detailed comments — it is the most productive and, as a result, the most expensive of the considered graphics cards. In individual games, the Radeon RX 580 or GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB close in results to the GTX 1660, but on average, the new NVIDIA model maintains a solid 14% distance from catching up rivals.

⇡#

Radeon R9 390X and GeForce GTX 980 against all
Now our work is close to completion, and the situation on the market for graphics accelerators of the middle and lower price categories is gradually clearing up … No matter how, because there are a lot of video cards for sale for two generations older, which at one time were the flagship or second-best offerings in the AMD and NVIDIA catalogs. Now used Radeon R9The 390X and GeForce GTX 980 can be bought for less than the Radeon RX 560 or GeForce GTX 1050 Ti. But do such low prices correspond to the real performance of old, but powerful hardware in modern games? Judge for yourself: the GeForce GTX 980 and Radeon R9 390X are practically equal in the generalized results and clogged in the gap between the GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB and Radeon RX 570 (with an 8-9% advantage) on the one hand and the GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB and Radeon RX 580 (the latter are faster by 6–7%) on the other.

However, in terms of raw performance GeForce GTX 980 and the Radeon R9 390X are capable of more. Based on the data from our GeForce GTX 1060 and Radeon RX 580 reviews, the Radeon R9 390X should leave the RX 580 behind in almost all cases, and the GeForce GTX 980 should swap places with the GTX 1060 depending on the specific game. Now the Radeon R9 390X is only slightly ahead of the more recent model in Battlefield V, and in DiRT Rally 2.0, for example, its performance drops significantly. In turn, the GeForce GTX 980, at best, claims to be equal to the GeForce GTX 1060 and retains an advantage only in Total War: WARHAMMER II (and in Battlefield V, for example, it fell almost to the level of the GeForce GTX 1650).

What happened to the old AMD and NVIDIA chips in the four years since the release of the Radeon R9 390X and GeForce GTX 980? We will not support conspiracy theories that claim that GPU manufacturers screw up the performance of older models in new driver versions. But the lack of specific optimizations — both in drivers and in games — for the architecture of the generation before last, clearly takes place. And NVIDIA products suffered the most from it. In last year’s comparison of accelerators under various graphics APIs, we already found out that the transition to Direct3D 12 does not help the «green» GPUs of the Maxwell family at all and often only harms, while large AMD chips (such as Hawaii / Grenada in the Radeon R9290X/390X), on the contrary, benefit from it. Here’s the Radeon R9 390X equalizing the GeForce GTX 980 four years after it started.

View queue

Queue

Delete all

Disable

YouTube Premium

Do you want to save this video?

Complain

Complain about video?

Sign in to report inappropriate content.

Did you like it?

Didn’t like it?

Video text

Although the manufacturer of the AMD Radeon RX 560 graphics processors positioned their video cards as direct competitors to all possible variations of the GeForce GTX 1050, real prices only allow comparison of the lower 2 GB models, i.