Best Graphics Cards for the Money (Archive)

[RedJaron]

Considering what we've seen from Asus on their Polaris Strix cards and the poor VRAM and VRM cooling, I'm wary of recommending their cards this generation.

 

[El_2__]

aaaaaaah

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Considering what we've seen from Asus on their Polaris Strix cards and the poor VRAM and VRM cooling, I'm wary of recommending their cards this generation.

Agreed, I am going to trust Gigabyte and MSI to have superior cooling. Not that long ago some members on Jonnyguru said the Asus cooler was total crap. I was like, "what?" But now I see what they mean. Also, according to some of them, sometimes some of the heatpipes don't even make contact and end up being useless. Not sure about that, but nonetheless they seem to be poor coolers.

 

[Kowmander]

Nice work, Chris. Please add the newest AMD cards to the Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table and some of the budget pricing complaints will go away - it's pretty easy to price cards on a given tier and decide what to buy.

 

[spladam]

Paying an extra $30 for the GTX 950 instead of getting an R7 360 @ $100 would be something you might want to mention. This format does not seem to lead to the best build advice, which is really more the point isn't it?

 

[Biscuit42]

So -- will the Graphics Card Hierarchy chart be updated ever again?

It's currently dated 'December 2015' yet somehow has two new NVIDIA cards on it -- but not the new AMD cards.

 

[the current year]

agree with TSNOR, please bring back the old format which was far superior.

 

[Vilnis]

eeeh, was looking for best in the world graphics cards hierarchy chart by Toms hardware, and had forgotten about this format change.. Not as near infomative or helpful as it use to be, to be honest - pretty useless, at least for me

 

[tsnor]

eeeh, was looking for best in the world graphics cards hierarchy chart by Toms hardware, and had forgotten about this format change.. Not as near infomative or helpful as it use to be, to be honest - pretty useless, at least for me

the hierarchy chart still exists. it's a little back level, but still VERY helpful. look here or google it if teh link gets stale: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

 

[AndrewJacksonZA]

the hierarchy chart still exists. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

Hmmm... I see that they listed the GTX 1060 as one tier above the RX 480. Based on benchmark evidence from Tom's 1060 review http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-pascal,4679-3.html as well as other reviews on the web (because Tom's doesn't include a Vulkan API in their benchmarks like, saaaaayyyyyy Doom, one of the biggest games of the year so far) I disagree. I would put them on the same tier.

If I had to only focus on DX12 and Vulkan I'd put the 480 on a tier above the 1060, but if I had to include DX11, I think that the same tier is fair.

For a Doom benchmark, go to [H]ardOCP: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/07/19/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1060_founders_edition_review/4
I'm pointing you to them because they seem, to me, to be a site that's biased towards Nvidia, but they do have the integrity to be fair and honest when the evidence demonstrates the opposite, as it is in this case.

 

[Vilnis]

TSNOR Aug 22, 2016, 8:27 PM - thank You very mutch, this chart is what I was looking for, glad that it is still alive

 

[naimad71]

I do agree with TSNOR. I've been using Tomshardware.com since 1998 as my go to for reviews. Toms has been apart of my vetting process for hundreds of builds for clients, friends, family and my own personal machines. I've had to get comfortable with a few format changes (Toms website) and ultimately have like and appreciated most of them. The previous format for "best graphic cards" was more helpful to me, personally. Thank you for all that you guys do.