Not a fan, I've been using this article for years, probably a decade, for 100's of different builds.
This article has cards jump from 70-120, and then from 120-220? Granted I do like the added display perspective, but its a bad move for the people who determined things on price, which is majority of the market. Most people don't care for display, and are looking for the best card for their budget.
The way this information is portrayed, tells me I basically can't play a game at 1080p unless I drop $220? This seems very biased for some reason. This doesn't seem very informative, and more like advertising. This isn't true Tom's Hardware fashion. This is not what a lot of people are looking for. The article is best graphics cards for the money, but you basically get 3 options.... prior articles gave you around 3 cards between 75-120 alone.
If the rise of all the fhd, qhd, and uhd has made things more complicated, then a more complicated article is needed, this seems very ......... useless.
Very disappointed. At the very least you should have done 2 articles and then done a survey to see what people prefer.
This just seems lazy and gimmicky, no data, no stats, no options, this is basically garbage and a waste of time. You obviously need to change the name of this article because "Money" is not a factor here obviously. If you called this article Best Card for the Resolution, then I would not be so upset and you guys ruining such an amazing series of articles with this playschool nonsense.