Best Graphics Cards For The Money: January 2012 (Archive)

[vertexx]

As a legendary Senior Hardware Editor once observed, "there are no longer any bad video cards, just bad prices."

Or in this case, a lot of great prices.

 

[RIKHOLLIS]

The AMD R9 270 is (I think) the least expensive graphics card that has a 256-bit memory bus. It's currently available for about 5$ more than the AMD R7 265 (128-bit) and the nVidia 750Ti (also 128-bit). As it can easily be overclocked to R9 270X speeds, I'm kind of surprised that it was overlooked as a Best Buy for this article.

 

[de5_Roy]

The AMD R9 270 is (I think) the least expensive graphics card that has a 256-bit memory bus. It's currently available for about 5$ more than the AMD R7 265 (128-bit) and the nVidia 750Ti (also 128-bit). As it can easily be overclocked to R9 270X speeds, I'm kind of surprised that it was overlooked as a Best Buy for this article.

r7 265 has a 256bit bus.

 

[cleeve]

The AMD R9 270 is (I think) the least expensive graphics card that has a 256-bit memory bus. It's currently available for about 5$ more than the AMD R7 265 (128-bit) and the nVidia 750Ti (also 128-bit). As it can easily be overclocked to R9 270X speeds, I'm kind of surprised that it was overlooked as a Best Buy for this article.

But the 270X is only $10 more, has a significantly higher core clock, and gives you a second power port for overclocking.

Hard to justify $190 for the 270 when the 270X has gone down to $200.

And yes, as De5_Roy mentioned, the 265 has a 256-bit bus. It has a slightly crippled 270 GPU, but the memory bus is intact. Even the memory clocks are the same, the bandwidth is identical.

 

[Anheanz]

they include for the r9 290, 280, 290x, and 780 ti but where is regular 780? i wouldve like to see what was to be said for that

 

[KenZen2B]

Don't you think it is time that add a second Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart just for UHD ?

 

[siman0]

Yo can pick up 290 and 290x miner cards off ebay for dirt cheap like top end is 350 USD

 

[cleeve]

they include for the r9 290, 280, 290x, and 780 ti but where is regular 780? i wouldve like to see what was to be said for that

The 780 (non-Ti) is more expensive than the 290, but slightly slower.

 

[Onus]

They might have been ridden hard and put away wet, so you'd be taking a big chance. That's one time I'd definitely choose XFX, for the transferable warranty.

 

[coolitic]

They removed the 770? That's not very smart.

 

[cleeve]

They removed the 770? That's not very smart.

Is is when it's now $50 more expensive than a 280X with little or no performance benefit.

 

[disenowebencaracas]

Well i was using a 660Ti and it worked really fine on my i3, i'd like to prove the Titan Z

 

[esrever]

Personally think most of the top GPUs from the 290 to the titan black should be in the same tier. There is just something like a less than 20% increase in performance that fills 2 tiers for no reason.

 

[jabuscus]

so, what's the best upgrade from a gtx 650?? 🙁
#StillConfused ?_?
PS I play at 1440x900 res 😛

 

[aquaticcolor]

so, what's the best upgrade from a gtx 650?? 🙁
#StillConfused ?_?
PS I play at 1440x900 res 😛

From 650? 270 or above.

 

[Zeh]

Can we have the new mobile GPUs in that hierarchy chart? Like the 850m, 860m and AMD's counterparts? I feel completely lost when comparing them to their desktop cousins.

 

[Raheel Hasan]

first time 760 is not recommended, pricing for R9 280 and 290 is too good.

 

[GIJoeMyGoodness]

I'm not a fan boy as I have rigs with AMD and Nvidia. I thought that the 770 outperformed the 280X in most benchmarks when it came to average frame rate? AMD optimized games like Battlefield 4 were much closer and favored AMD, but Nvidia wasn't too far off. Games like Bioshock and Crysis still ran better according to the last benchmarks I saw. Did the 280X win the spot because it's $50 less and still comparable for the most part? I agree that it's a better value, but for a little more I still prefer the rock solid stability I've had with my 770. My R9-270x chips had some issues but performed great for the money too.

 

[lunyone]

I'm not a fan boy as I have rigs with AMD and Nvidia. I thought that the 770 outperformed the 280X in most benchmarks when it came to average frame rate? AMD optimized games like Battlefield 4 were much closer and favored AMD, but Nvidia wasn't too far off. Games like Bioshock and Crysis still ran better according to the last benchmarks I saw. Did the 280X win the spot because it's $50 less and still comparable for the most part? I agree that it's a better value, but for a little more I still prefer the rock solid stability I've had with my 770. My R9-270x chips had some issues but performed great for the money too.

I haven't read the whole article, but for me if I'm saving $50 or more (especially in the $250-$350 price range) is a big deal. If we were talking in the >$500 price range it might not mean quite as much. So for most people, if you can buy a GPU for ~$250-380 that performs around a >$310 - $550 GPU than they are probably going to save the $ and use that extra $ for upgrades on their build or just save the $ for other things.

Price comparison of 280x vs. GTX 770.

 

[cleeve]

Did the 280X win the spot because it's $50 less and still comparable for the most part? I agree that it's a better value, but for a little more I still prefer the rock solid stability I've had with my 770. My R9-270x chips had some issues but performed great for the money too.

Yes, the 280X delivers like 95% the perf of a 770 on average, for significantly less dough.

As a hardware reviewer, I don't see a lot of difference on the driver end. *All* manufacturers have driver issues from game to game, and irritating quirks now and again, but on average I honestly can't say one is better or worse than another. It's not 2001 anymore, the huge divide just doesn't exist.

 

[mordorrson]

Just so you guys know, there's actually quite a few options that are cheaper than the boards listed here. You can get an R9 290X 4GB IceQ X^2 from Newegg for $440 right now. There are also versions of the other cards they recommended here that undercut the price of reference cards by $50 or so. Nvidia basically got bombed in the price/performance market for this month.

 

[Niavlys77]

The only thing missing here is power/efficiency - AMD cards generally use a good amount more power than the NVidia ones.. would be nice to see the comparison, and the potential $/month or something of the sort.

 

[cleeve]

The only thing missing here is power/efficiency - AMD cards generally use a good amount more power than the NVidia ones.. would be nice to see the comparison, and the potential $/month or something of the sort.

Depends on the price segment, actually, as AMD has some efficient stuff, too.

But from a realistic standpoint, lets say there's a 50 Watt difference under load (at idle and active idle there's very little being drawn from the graphics card) and you play games an average 2 hours a day, five days a week. That's 40 hours a week times 50 watts = 2000 watt/hours = 2 kwh. In the most expensive states I think electricity costs somewhere in the 16 cent per kwh range, that's a 32 cent a month difference in power usage.

Not really worth calculating unless you're corporate with thousands of machines.

 

[airborne11b]

I think it's quite a stretch to say AMD is "dominating". The fact of the matter is that both Nvidia and AMD generally give comparable performance for close to the same price. For example, AMD in some situations might give you 5 FPS improvement for $20 less dollars, and next month an Nvidia card compared to AMD might give a +8 average FPS gain over a similar AMD card for $15 dollars less, etc etc, but there is a lot more to a card than simply raw performance and the price differences aren't really drastic enough to make a purchasing choice solely based on that.

For me, Nvidia provides better driver support and gives support to my shield gaming handheld, which is the best handheld I've ever bought due to all it's rich features.

Lets not even forget that Gsync DIY's have been available for some time now and has been quite enjoyable for me, providing an experience AMD currently can't match. Also, Gsync installed monitors are about to hit the streets, while Freesync is not even in sight yet.

A tiny bit of game performance or a couple bucks saved going with an AMD just doesn't justify the purchase for me. If AMD were "dominating", in any real sense of the word, then I wouldn't even want nvidia products.

Lets keep it real, competition is good and the fact of the matter is that they're really neck and neck atm, neither of them truly dominating the other when you look at the overall picture.

Just throwing that out there.

 

[Niavlys77]

The only thing missing here is power/efficiency - AMD cards generally use a good amount more power than the NVidia ones.. would be nice to see the comparison, and the potential $/month or something of the sort.

Depends on the price segment, actually, as AMD has some efficient stuff, too.

But from a realistic standpoint, lets say there's a 50 Watt difference under load (at idle and active idle there's very little being drawn from the graphics card) and you play games an average 2 hours a day, five days a week. That's 40 hours a week times 50 watts = 2000 watt/hours = 2 kwh. In the most expensive states I think electricity costs somewhere in the 16 cent per kwh range, that's a 32 cent a month difference in power usage.

Not really worth calculating unless you're corporate with thousands of machines.

Ah, good point. I suppose it really only adds up if you plan to keep the card over several years. But even then, the initial money you save will likely more than make up for that.