Best Graphics Cards for the Money (Archive)

[GreasyKeane]

"just be ready to drop $1200 on graphics and a platform powerful enough to prevent bottlenecks."

This would be a very helpful guide/article for those looking to upgrade thier GPUs. Personally I am taking advantage of the holiday season to go from a pair of very old (and hot) GTX465's that I have moved between multiple computers (was never gaming much then) to a pair of GTX 980 ti's. I will not be surprised if my i7-2600K CPU and 16GB DDR3 memory becomes and issue when playing at 4K with ultra settings, if that will even be playable. I might be surprised though and I have yet to OC anything at this point. I plan to upgrade some of those other components in the future (maybe in 6 months to a year) if I need to in order to play at max settings on the new 4K MonoPrice monitor I also picked up with the new GPU's (thanks for the review on that BTW) but even if I can't play maxed out it will still be a much needed improvement from what I have had in the machine.

Anyway, it would be really nice to have an article for those upgrading some but not all components with some expected benefits/results prior to spending cash. Not sure the best way to achieve this, curious if anyone has any ideas or existing articles I may have missed?

 

[Baumy15]

Some prices for other countries would be good as it seems a 980Ti is America is cheaper that a 980 in Australia $669 vs $699.

This is probably to much to ask but over the last few months I have been looking for a new GPU, this article helps a little but then I have to go find the price and shipping and factor all that in and it takes to long

 

[plasmastorm]

Running an MSI R9 390 @ 2560x1080, happily runs anything in ultra etc so can easily agree with the 390 placement on this scale.

 

[summerstorm]

Please, get us back the hierarchy table, it was very useful in order to compare old hardware with the new one , also it was very useful in order to aim for a new minimum gpu/cpu , this guides were the reason I first knew about toms hardware ( please, thanks )

edit:misspelling

 

[tsnor]

I LOVED best graphics card ... the old format. The new format is not usable for me. My buying decision has always been "what can $150 buy me, and is it worth it to spend another $50". The old format explained this perfectly. The new format leaves a gap between the $120 card and the $220 card. This $120 to $220 gap is the sweet spot that I research. I do not care what the 'best card for 1080p' is. I care what the best card I can buy for $150.

Where is the graphic card hierarchy? I care how any new card compares to my current card. The old article did a GREAT job of showing this. Many generations of cards in one easy to read table. OMG how could you lose that ?

Where is the price/performance graph set? Really nice. Current article says for 1080p buy a $120 card but if you want the best then buy a $220 card. No hint what might be between, and where you can cost optimize.

 

[ErikVinoya]

Here's a suggestion, why not use the old format, then add a table/graph/whatever next to a card in every price point stating their performance in a specific resolution.

For example:
Best in $150 range: GTX 950
720p: awesome
1080p: playable
2160p: don't even dare

I'm as good as a rock when it comes to writing though, so I'm pretty sure you can come up with something better

 

[Calculatron]

I think this is a far more practical format, because a person might have a price-point in mind, but might not be sure of what performance they might get. This brings that information out front.

 

[Onus]

The biggest issue I have with this is the implication that one must spend $xxx in order to play at nnnnp, without defining what FPS is desired/required, nor what settings are required/acceptable.
For example, I've been testing a low-power system. The focus is on the motherboard and CPU, but I put a GTX750Ti in it, and have found it to be quite enjoyable for GW2 at 1600x900. Settings are mostly high; none low, and as many ultra as medium. The average FPS is just over 35, which IMHO is enjoyable; in GW1 with everything maxed the average is almost 60FPS.
At the end of the day though, like the previous format, this article provides just a few more data points, to be considered along with others in order to reach a buying decision.
I'd like to add my voice to the multitudes clamoring for the hierarchy chart. While it has always been niggled as well, it is one of the most useful tables Tom's has ever produced.

 

[denzii]

This may be just out of topic but I own two rigs one with 2 GeForice 980 's in SLI for gaming. I thought I could build a graphics computer out of the leftovers from the last build. which was a GeForce 770. Turns out that I had to buy a GTX 980 ti to get the graphics rig to work properly. So basically get your gaming rig up to Twin GTX 980 ti's you will rock the house.

 

[blbeta]

Like the new layout a lot.

 

[RobertoG83]

I like this system to compare graphics cards. But I don't agree that only expensive card are good....

All depends on the purpose of using graphics cards.

 

[badvok66]

Hmm, confusing article format, bang-for-buck or best-for-gaming-at-XXX? Might be better to stick to one or the other, it would be good to still see the bang-for-buck format but it would also be good to see a separate best-for-gaming-at-XXX article that didn't factor in price (since AMD seem to be pretty sharp at under-cutting Nvidia which distorts things a little).

 

[vertexx]

+1 for the new format. Saying "I have $xx to spend, what's the best card" is exactly how the marketers want you to think about making purchase decisions. Then you're always tempted to spend a little more, and to what end?

A better way to purchase is to use the approach outlined in this article.

 

[Toddskins]

I'm running a 1920x1200 screen. The latest GPU recommendations are based on screen resolution, but my screen resolution is not mentioned in the mix. Will getting a card based on the 1080 resolution change any by having a 1200?

 

[TechyInAZ]

Good article! It's definantly true that AMD has the edge in price to performance in the lower end segments.

I'd also suggest adding the GTX 950 as a possible middle ground category between 720P and 1080P.

 

[ivanthechemist]

There was a nice post that I would like to comment on:

1) Add section for non-gaming discrete GPUs. Possible usage scenarios include HTPC use with video processing and output to UHD@60 HDMI2.0, as well as getting (possibly multiple) UHD@60 or QHD@60/144 outputs in a general use computer. Most motherboard integrated graphics connectors only allow UHD@30 at most, and apart from DP usually only 1920x1200@60.

I would love to see the integrated and professional GPUs here. Possibly G-SYNC/Freesync notes or suggestions.

2) Make some sort of mention to target framerate - requirements for 144 Hz operation at FHD or QHD are, after all, quite different from 60 Hz. Obvious setting groups that would emerge are FHD@144/QHD@60 and QHD@144/UHD@60.

I wholeheartedly support this! As higher resolutions become playable, higher performance on lower ones should also increase. Where are people maxing out 1080p heavy games supposed to put their excess FPS on CoD/CS:GO/LoL?

As much as I LOVE the new format (I am usage goals oriented), this is still a "best for the money" cards, not "best for target performance and then money". You can change it up and turn it in a new article/chart, but that is up to the editors

I know this is mostly a gaming oriented comparison, but I would like to see some real productivity benchmarks - Photoshop, Sony Vegas, Premiere, rendering times for 2D and 3D.

 

[thegreenmenace]

What about ultrawide (21:9 - 2560 x 1080) resolutions? Is the nvidia 970 good enough to pull that off at higher frame rates and very high to ultra settings? And most importantly, will the price drop on 970s and 980s this summer be significant enough to wait for the Pascal launch?

 

[Onus]

+1 for the new format. Saying "I have $xx to spend, what's the best card" is exactly how the marketers want you to think about making purchase decisions. Then you're always tempted to spend a little more, and to what end?

A better way to purchase is to use the approach outlined in this article.

I mostly agree with this, especially to the extent that it defeats marketing droids trying to upsell people. The missing piece though, is an acceptable FPS range. Some people are content to play at 35 average FPS, and others want 60 FPS minimum. This is a major input to the buying decision, especially on the low side, where $10 may actually make a visible difference. This is a huge benefit of the hierarchy chart; if you define 45FPS average as the guideline, then someone willing to take less, or another insisting on more, can each use the chart to move down to save money, or up to get better performance.

 

[Math Geek]

+1 for the new format. Saying "I have $xx to spend, what's the best card" is exactly how the marketers want you to think about making purchase decisions. Then you're always tempted to spend a little more, and to what end?

A better way to purchase is to use the approach outlined in this article.

I mostly agree with this, especially to the extent that it defeats marketing droids trying to upsell people. The missing piece though, is an acceptable FPS range. Some people are content to play at 35 average FPS, and others want 60 FPS minimum. This is a major input to the buying decision, especially on the low side, where $10 may actually make a visible difference. This is a huge benefit of the hierarchy chart; if you define 45FPS average as the guideline, then someone willing to take less, or another insisting on more, can each use the chart to move down to save money, or up to get better performance.

makes a lot of sense and this is how my mind works as i offer suggestions on builds. is why we always ask for the users goals when offering ideas. we have already kind of mentally made the connections and know what goes where for whatever goals and budgets. i'm not sure how it would look or how to go about it but an article that somehow puts it all together would be awesome. bang for the buck, target resolutions, fps goals, multi monitor resolutions and so on. all the information is out there between dozens of articles but a META combination would be awesome to have.

problem is it turns into people wanting every possible combination of parts, screens, games and such spoon fed to them. eventually people are going to have to do a bit of research on their own to figure out what to expect from a specific system. no matter how complete the article becomes, someone is still going to cry because their specific case is not covered.

 

[summerstorm]

+1 for the new format. Saying "I have $xx to spend, what's the best card" is exactly how the marketers want you to think about making purchase decisions. Then you're always tempted to spend a little more, and to what end?

A better way to purchase is to use the approach outlined in this article.

I mostly agree with this, especially to the extent that it defeats marketing droids trying to upsell people. The missing piece though, is an acceptable FPS range. Some people are content to play at 35 average FPS, and others want 60 FPS minimum. This is a major input to the buying decision, especially on the low side, where $10 may actually make a visible difference. This is a huge benefit of the hierarchy chart; if you define 45FPS average as the guideline, then someone willing to take less, or another insisting on more, can each use the chart to move down to save money, or up to get better performance.

Precisely Best for the money series was supposed to prioritize the monetary cost over other aspects and there the title Best for money, that was what it all was about, i used to find it so much helpful...

Average gamer would love to have latest ultimate rig sitting right next to him/her, the thing is most of us are on a budget, that means I dont aim for the best of the best since I can't afford it, instead I search within a price range what I can afford me, that was beautifully done in older Best for the money series, since I could have compared how the new picks are going to perform against my actual one and tell if the upgrade will be noticeable worth it.

I'm not against the new perspective though, I like it being more gamer aimed, more specialized, just don't call it Best for money, beacuse clearly it isn't and is very confusing at first glance. "I have x$ to spend whats the best card" is what I ask myself when upgrading, maybe I can spend that +25 % if worth it, maybe wait 6 months or black friday or whatever if worth it, That depends. Anyway thats what I liked bout ol'BFM.

Also I'm not into freesync and high fps on latest shooter, I just like money well spent

 

[clockworkavatar]

I liked the old layout much much better.

 

[Toolman-Tim]

Bring back the hierarchy chart!

 

[summerstorm]

Here's a suggestion, why not use the old format, then add a table/graph/whatever next to a card in every price point stating their performance in a specific resolution.

For example:
Best in $150 range: GTX 950
720p: awesome
1080p: playable
2160p: don't even dare

I'm as good as a rock when it comes to writing though, so I'm pretty sure you can come up with something better

This would be probably a satisfying solution, also I had some LOL

 

[william p]

I think at the low end they should eliminate any cards that require a power connector. In other words over the 65W PCIe 16x limit.There's no point in saving money on a card if you have to buy a new PSU to run it. The GTX750Ti O/C doesn't need one. I would like to know if Radeon has one that performs as well. It's not fair to either company to ignore this facet of budget video card selection. I'm not an Nvidia fan boy. I just don't see this information presented anywhere. I see the GTX750 series as a very good value over the GT730 because of this. Or any card that doesn't need a power connector should be considered a budget card due to this savings and not be penalized for it's high performance. A lot of these budget cards go into SFF and USFF computers where a PSU upgrade might not be an option.

 

[Onus]

I also agree that the GTX750Ti should be called out for being the most powerful card that doesn't need PCIe power. That can be a big deal in some cases.