Best Graphics Cards For The Money: October 2014

[adamovera]

We talk about the new GeForce GTX 970 and 980 in this months update, and see how these disruptive products have changed the price landscape. We also talkn about the GeForce GTX 970M, 980M, and discuss rumors of upcoming products.

Best Graphics Cards For The Money: October 2014 : Read more

 

[adamovera]

Archived comments are found here: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2690363/graphics-cards-money-october-2014.html

 

[rgd1101]

Intel skylake igpu have a big jump on the Hierarchy Chart

 

[Bartendalot]

I thought Tom's gave up on these charts in June.

Welcome back!

 

[Fulgurant]

Thanks guys, been waiting for this.

Question: A couple of years back, it seemed that the GTX 750 Ti and the HD 7850 were basically equivalent. Toms' own review of the 750 Ti said that: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-750-ti-review,3750-14.html

It was also pretty widely accepted that when the 650 Ti Boost launched, it was only very slightly behind the 7850. At the time, the Boost was a bang-for-buck favorite.

Yet here I see the 7850 a full tier higher than both of the NVIDIA options, in both the hierarchy chart (which I understand to be approximate), and in the text of the article (where you tout the 270 as significantly more powerful than the 750 Ti).

Have AMD's drivers just gotten that much better in the interim?

Also, I'm not seeing the new GTX 950 on the hierarchy chart at all.

 

[littleleo]

It is about time everyone has been expecting this since the beginning of last month. Tom's has spoiled us with the frequency we used to see this article pop out in the past.

That being said I see the 960 on tier about the 760 and no 950. Where would the 950 pop in at the same as the 760 & the 660Ti? I see some wins for AMD which will make team Red happy. I think AMD is working on their drivers which is why their cards are rising on the charts. Nvidia's drivers are more developed at release of their cards so they don't seem to gain as much. Where do the AMD APU graphics rate at when I check the models on website they all say R7 GPU not very informative. Would they be comparative to the R7 240? The top most integrated under AMD I see is the HD 7660D don't they rate higher then that?

 

[blazorthon]

[quotemsg=16789346,0,992934]Thanks guys, been waiting for this.

Question: A couple of years back, it seemed that the GTX 750 Ti and the HD 7850 were basically equivalent. Toms' own review of the 750 Ti said that: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-750-ti-review,3750-14.html

It was also pretty widely accepted that when the 650 Ti Boost launched, it was only very slightly behind the 7850. At the time, the Boost was a bang-for-buck favorite.

Yet here I see the 7850 a full tier higher than both of the NVIDIA options, in both the hierarchy chart (which I understand to be approximate), and in the text of the article (where you tout the 270 as significantly more powerful than the 750 Ti).

Have AMD's drivers just gotten that much better in the interim?

Also, I'm not seeing the new GTX 950 on the hierarchy chart at all.[/quotemsg]

The 270 is practically a 7870, not a 7850, so it should perform better. The other ones, idk, they're pretty close. It might just be that the 650 Ti Boost and the 750 Ti were barely under the minimums for the next tier whereas the 7850 was barely above the minimums.

 

[Math Geek]

i also noticed the 950 was missing from the list but it should be either just below the 960 or maybe even right with it on the same level. it is almost as fast and if the 270/270x and 370 are on the same level, then the 950 is close enough to the 960 to be on the same level as well. or more likely right on the line between them but that is a bit nit picky for the overall scheme of things.

and from what i have seen the 750 ti is below the r9-270 and the 2 levels worth seems about right. benchmarks i have seen showed the 750 ti ftw super overclocked was just short of a reference 270. so a normal 750ti is well below a 270 especially a non reference one. it's tough to be perfect but most of it seems just about right or close enough to work with anyway.

i'd also like to see the amd apu's ranked as well. i know it says r5/7 igp but i'm sure it is not quite as good as a discrete r5/7. it's hard to find benchmarks for the apu's but there is bound to be enough info to get them into the list. if the intel igp's can be there so should the apu's

 

[CptBarbossa]

Yet another session goes by with major flaws. The r9 390x performs the same or better than the GTX 980 at a lower price, but is not recommended and put in a lower tier.

The r9 fury almost ALWAYS beats the GTX 980, but is in the same tier and is not recommended.

I see NO reason to go with th GTX 970 over the r9 390 except for SFF or very low power builds seeing as how the r9 390 beats the GTX 970 at all but 1080p, and is on par at that resolution for the same price.

Tom's, you are allowed your preference to Nvidia, but when recommending cards for people to spend their hard earned money on please try and be objective when recommending video cards. Between the gtx 960 and the gtx 980ti, AMD hold all price-performance wins, even based on your own reviews. I am glad to give the overall win to the gtx 980ti and a very nice 1080p sweet spot to Nvidia, but AMD has a lot to offer in the mid-upper tier range that you just choose to ignore.

 

[beshonk]

Are we expecting a maxwell refresh lineup before we see pascal with HBM? Refreshes used to be a one year cycle if i'm not mis-remembering. And why did it take them nearly a year to release the full lineup?

 

[rgd1101]

Pascal should be out the 1st Q 2016, so I doubt there will be a refresh.

 

[ErikVinoya]

Pascal should be out the 1st Q 2016, so I doubt there will be a refresh.

You have sources for this? I don't know, but, if economics taught me anything, its that it is a bad business decision to roll out new products a quarter after people splurged on the holidays. The earliest should be Q2

 

[Gurg]

I liked the first page talking about the best buys for for a specific resolution. monitor

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I didn't know this year was 2014. Did I go back in time?

And thank goodness you did not include the 960.

 

[killerchickens]

I wish overclocking could be accounted for.

 

[UltimateDeep]

You used to include the Mobile GPUs. Where are they?! I need those there.
And yup, the 950 is missing.

 

[TallestJon96]

Cards worth buying, in order of lowest price to highest.

750 ti
950
380
970
980 ti

There are a few exceptions, but these are the best ones to look at.

 

[Co BIY]

I think highlighting the cards selected as "best for the money" in bold in the hierarchy chart might work well.

 

[youcanDUit]

anyone else feel safe after these come out? like all is right with the world. like i can finally go outside, just to come back in and play metal gear.

 

[Cryio]

Yet another session goes by with major flaws. The r9 390x performs the same or better than the GTX 980 at a lower price, but is not recommended and put in a lower tier.

The r9 fury almost ALWAYS beats the GTX 980, but is in the same tier and is not recommended.

I see NO reason to go with th GTX 970 over the r9 390 except for SFF or very low power builds seeing as how the r9 390 beats the GTX 970 at all but 1080p, and is on par at that resolution for the same price.

Tom's, you are allowed your preference to Nvidia, but when recommending cards for people to spend their hard earned money on please try and be objective when recommending video cards. Between the gtx 960 and the gtx 980ti, AMD hold all price-performance wins, even based on your own reviews. I am glad to give the overall win to the gtx 980ti and a very nice 1080p sweet spot to Nvidia, but AMD has a lot to offer in the mid-upper tier range that you just choose to ignore.

So true. Like literaly, no Nvidia GPU except for single GPU case for the 980 Ti is worth it today.


A 260X performs like a 750 Ti and is cheaper.
A 265 is faster than a 750 Ti and is cheaper/same price.
A 270X is faster than a 950 and cheaper.
380 is faster than a 960 and same price/cheaper.
390 is faster than the 970 and same price.
390X is as fast as a 980 and cheaper.
Fury is faster than a 980 for a 50 dollar premium, but it's worth it.
Fury X? Eh ... A 980 Ti is a better value, can't argue with that.

For 4K, HardOCP did a recent 4K SLI/XFire article ( http://hardocp.com/article/2015/10/06/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_crossfire_at_4k_review#.ViDTXUqECHs ). Apparently, two Fury X are faster than two 980 Tis or two Titan X.

So 4K recommendation: 2 Fury X INSTEAD of 2 980 Ti.

 

[deuce_23]

Dam toms i needed this article a couple weeks ago. I just got a gtx 980ti. I may have reconsidered and have gotten a pair of 970s or a pair of 980s. But what's done is done.

 

[AaronMa]

I use a 4k tv as my monitor, and I would love to go with 2 Fury x's, but AMD made the terrible decision of not including HDMI 2.0.

 

[littleleo]

[quotemsg=16791506,0,414569]

Yet another session goes by with major flaws. The r9 390x performs the same or better than the GTX 980 at a lower price, but is not recommended and put in a lower tier.

The r9 fury almost ALWAYS beats the GTX 980, but is in the same tier and is not recommended.

I see NO reason to go with th GTX 970 over the r9 390 except for SFF or very low power builds seeing as how the r9 390 beats the GTX 970 at all but 1080p, and is on par at that resolution for the same price.

Tom's, you are allowed your preference to Nvidia, but when recommending cards for people to spend their hard earned money on please try and be objective when recommending video cards. Between the gtx 960 and the gtx 980ti, AMD hold all price-performance wins, even based on your own reviews. I am glad to give the overall win to the gtx 980ti and a very nice 1080p sweet spot to Nvidia, but AMD has a lot to offer in the mid-upper tier range that you just choose to ignore.

So true. Like literaly, no Nvidia GPU except for single GPU case for the 980 Ti is worth it today.


A 260X performs like a 750 Ti and is cheaper.
A 265 is faster than a 750 Ti and is cheaper/same price.
A 270X is faster than a 950 and cheaper.
380 is faster than a 960 and same price/cheaper.
390 is faster than the 970 and same price.
390X is as fast as a 980 and cheaper.
Fury is faster than a 980 for a 50 dollar premium, but it's worth it.
Fury X? Eh ... A 980 Ti is a better value, can't argue with that.

For 4K, HardOCP did a recent 4K SLI/XFire article ( http://hardocp.com/article/2015/10/06/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_crossfire_at_4k_review#.ViDTXUqECHs ). Apparently, two Fury X are faster than two 980 Tis or two Titan X.

So 4K recommendation: 2 Fury X INSTEAD of 2 980 Ti.[/quotemsg]

Only problem was Crossfire didn't work on 1/2 the games so in my book its not better then the 980 Ti which worked on all of them.

 

[CptBarbossa]

[quotemsg=16792782,0,242296][quotemsg=16791506,0,414569]

Yet another session goes by with major flaws. The r9 390x performs the same or better than the GTX 980 at a lower price, but is not recommended and put in a lower tier.

The r9 fury almost ALWAYS beats the GTX 980, but is in the same tier and is not recommended.

I see NO reason to go with th GTX 970 over the r9 390 except for SFF or very low power builds seeing as how the r9 390 beats the GTX 970 at all but 1080p, and is on par at that resolution for the same price.

Tom's, you are allowed your preference to Nvidia, but when recommending cards for people to spend their hard earned money on please try and be objective when recommending video cards. Between the gtx 960 and the gtx 980ti, AMD hold all price-performance wins, even based on your own reviews. I am glad to give the overall win to the gtx 980ti and a very nice 1080p sweet spot to Nvidia, but AMD has a lot to offer in the mid-upper tier range that you just choose to ignore.

So true. Like literaly, no Nvidia GPU except for single GPU case for the 980 Ti is worth it today.


A 260X performs like a 750 Ti and is cheaper.
A 265 is faster than a 750 Ti and is cheaper/same price.
A 270X is faster than a 950 and cheaper.
380 is faster than a 960 and same price/cheaper.
390 is faster than the 970 and same price.
390X is as fast as a 980 and cheaper.
Fury is faster than a 980 for a 50 dollar premium, but it's worth it.
Fury X? Eh ... A 980 Ti is a better value, can't argue with that.

For 4K, HardOCP did a recent 4K SLI/XFire article ( http://hardocp.com/article/2015/10/06/amd_radeon_r9_fury_x_crossfire_at_4k_review#.ViDTXUqECHs ). Apparently, two Fury X are faster than two 980 Tis or two Titan X.

So 4K recommendation: 2 Fury X INSTEAD of 2 980 Ti.[/quotemsg]

Only problem was Crossfire didn't work on 1/2 the games so in my book its not better then the 980 Ti which worked on all of them.[/quotemsg]

I would agree with that to a point. I feel a single card is best, but I also feel that crossfire is still viable if you go into it knowing there will be initial bugs at game launch. The advantage is that crossfire tends to scale better than sli, so if you want multi-top tier cards you would be better off going with 2 fury x's than two 980ti's. If you go single card, go with the 980ti. If you think you may add another card down the road but only want a single card for now, go with the fury x.

 

[logainofhades]

I disagree on the 980 recommendation. It trades blows with the fairly less expensive 390x. Performance/$ the 390x is simply a better card, especially for higher resolutions.