Best Graphics Cards For The Money: October 2014

[jnkweaver]

So there isn't any cards between $190-$320? That is a large gap. Sure you didn't miss some?

 

[CptBarbossa]

So there isn't any cards between $190-$320? That is a large gap. Sure you didn't miss some?

The r9 290 is what you are looking for.

 

[logainofhades]

So there isn't any cards between $190-$320? That is a large gap. Sure you didn't miss some?

Some R9 390's are going for just a bit under/right at $320. Have to shop to get real prices. Thankfully we have pcpartpicker to do the hard part for us. 😀 http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/video-card/

 

[Math Geek]

So there isn't any cards between $190-$320? That is a large gap. Sure you didn't miss some?

it's also not so much as having "missed" anything, but rather what you get in that range. you get very solid 1080p performance at $200ish range. you have to go up to the $320+ area to get to solid 1440p performance. anything in the middle is simply overkill on the 1080p side and still not enough on the 1440p side. sure a bit extra helps but is not totally needed after about $200 at 1080p.

at least this is my take on the big gap in suggestions.

 

[CommieK]

All the AMD fanboys whining about their cards being the value ones...they forget the power draw of the Vegas Strip of those cards...What's the point of getting a 380 for an upgrade to 'save' when the power bills will end up bigger and you'll probably need a new PSU to go with it?

 

[logainofhades]

The 380 isn't that horrible of a card, power wise. It is the 390 and 390x that are bit on wattage. The 380 has a bit better performance, than a 280, but is rated about 60w less. Also your power bill is not going to be that affected, unless you keep your system on 24/7, and at load. The overclocked Asus Strix version doesn't use much more wattage than my GTX 770. The stock R9 285/380 uses a bit less. Until maxwell, Nvidia wasn't really all that much better, with efficiency either. How convenient that Nvidia fanboys forget everything pre Maxwell.

 

[Gurg]

The 380 isn't that horrible of a card, power wise. It is the 390 and 390x that are bit on wattage. The 380 has a bit better performance, than a 280, but is rated about 60w less. Also your power bill is not going to be that affected, unless you keep your system on 24/7, and at load. The overclocked Asus Strix version doesn't use much more wattage than my GTX 770. The stock R9 285/380 uses a bit less. Until maxwell, Nvidia wasn't really all that much better, with efficiency either. How convenient that Nvidia fanboys forget everything pre Maxwell.

A long long time ago in a galaxy far away I owned AMD gpus. Then their drivers became neglected and quirky and their gpus become dual purpose space heaters. If we go into a mini Ice age I may reconsider AMD gpus.

 

[logainofhades]

The only dual purpose space heaters, really, are the Hawaii based cards. The update drivers regularly too.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I have all the specifications on exactly how much money you save comparing various AMD cards to Nvidia cards: it's not really that much, barely anything saved in electricity: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2833574/electric-bill-amd-nvidia-mathematics-calculated.html

 

[ErikVinoya]

I have all the specifications on exactly how much money you save comparing various AMD cards to Nvidia cards: it's not really that much, barely anything saved in electricity: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2833574/electric-bill-amd-nvidia-mathematics-calculated.html

I wouldn't call $25 per year "barely anything", especially if you plan on keeping your card for at least 3 years

 

[logainofhades]

$25 a year difference isn't much of anything. A bad summer, or winter, could have more influence, on your bill, than that.

 

[Fulgurant]

$25 a year difference isn't much of anything. A bad summer, or winter, could have more influence, on your bill, than that.

When you're talkin about a purchase comparison that might boil down to ~$25, it's important. The topic is cost efficiency for graphics cards, not "how much does my electric bill suck overall."

 

[ErikVinoya]

$25 a year difference isn't much of anything. A bad summer, or winter, could have more influence, on your bill, than that.

My point is with regards to the extra cost incurred by the card though.

Look at it this way, if a GTX970 and an R9 390 is both priced at $330, and we know that the 390 slightly outperforms the 970 but at the cost of an extra $25 per year in electricity. Then if you're planning to keep the card in 3 years, wouldn't the 390 effectively cost you $405, compared to the $330 of the 970?

 

[logainofhades]

$25/yr isn't anything. That is less than $0.07 a day. If you are that poor, that $25 a year is going to hurt you, maybe you need to rethink your priorities. Maybe a few less trips out to eat, and learn to cook for yourself.

 

[Fulgurant]

$25/yr isn't anything. That is less than $0.07 a day. If you are that poor, that $25 a year is going to hurt you, maybe you need to rethink your priorities. Maybe a few less trips out to eat, and learn to cook for yourself.

One soda costs $1 per can. Another soda costs $10 per can. By your logic, the latter is an ok buy because $9 isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

We are talking about the cost efficiency of graphics cards. In some cases, those graphics cards differ in cost by $5-10. If one out of two comparably performing cards costs $10 less up front, but will cost you $50-75 more in electricity, then the other card is irrefutably a better buy.

Your objection is irrelevant to the topic.

 

[logainofhades]

No it is not irrelevant. If you are all that concerned with $25/yr, you need to rethink your priorities, period. Games are also starting to use more and more VRAM, hence why at 1440p, and 4k, the 390 is superior to the 970.

 

[RedJaron]

One soda costs $1 per can. Another soda costs $10 per can. By your logic, the latter is an ok buy because $9 isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

We are talking about the cost efficiency of graphics cards. In some cases, those graphics cards differ in cost by $5-10. If one out of two comparably performing cards costs $10 less up front, but will cost you $50-75 more in electricity, then the other card is irrefutably a better buy.

Your objection is irrelevant to the topic.

If it was only about the soda, then maybe. However, if you were to calculate the price of the soda in reference to the rest of your annual grocery bill, fast food, restaurants, and all other forms of food costs ( especially cost fluctuations ), then that $10 becomes less significant.

I don't think anyone is saying the extra electricity is nothing, we're just saying consider it with everything else you spend money on and the rate at which you pay it. No one is saying the AMD or NVidia model is the better purchase in all cases. However, the slightly higher power consumption also isn't an automatic DQ from any purchase consideration.

 

[Fulgurant]

One soda costs $1 per can. Another soda costs $10 per can. By your logic, the latter is an ok buy because $9 isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

We are talking about the cost efficiency of graphics cards. In some cases, those graphics cards differ in cost by $5-10. If one out of two comparably performing cards costs $10 less up front, but will cost you $50-75 more in electricity, then the other card is irrefutably a better buy.

Your objection is irrelevant to the topic.

If it was only about the soda, then maybe. However, if you were to calculate the price of the soda in reference to the rest of your annual grocery bill, fast food, restaurants, and all other forms of food costs ( especially cost fluctuations ), then that $10 becomes less significant.

I don't think anyone is saying the extra electricity is nothing, we're just saying consider it with everything else you spend money on and the rate at which you pay it. No one is saying the AMD or NVidia model is the better purchase in all cases. However, the slightly higher power consumption also isn't an automatic DQ from any purchase consideration.

Of course, but that point is a non sequitur. You can't simultaneously take into account differences in the upfront cost, which are usually inconsequential in the grand scheme (10, 20, 30 bucks maybe), and then dismiss similar price differences in upkeep because "LOL you must be poor if you care."

You either care or you don't about the money. But if you're commenting on an article that purports to compare cards based in large part on their cost efficiency, then you're stuck with the default posture of caring for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[RedJaron]

Of course, but that point is a non sequitur. You can't simultaneously take into account differences in the upfront cost, which are usually inconsequential in the grand scheme (10, 20, 30 bucks maybe), and then dismiss similar price differences in upkeep because "LOL you must be poor if you care."

You either care or you don't about the money. But if you're commenting on an article that purports to compare cards based in large part on their cost efficiency, then you're stuck with the default posture of caring for the purpose of this discussion.

I'm not dismissing anything. You're simply not recognizing all the ways someone can feel like they're getting value out of how they spend their money. Many people are okay paying extra if it makes them feel they're getting some extra performance, whether or not it's measurable. Some people have brand loyalty and will pay the higher operating costs to stay with it. Let's try some specific cases.

Let's say someone wants a great 1080p card. On NV's side, there's a big gap between the 960 and 970. The 280X and sometimes 280 can outdo the 960, even though the electrical requirements are much higher. However, the user is willing to pay extra because it gets them better framerates now and will likely stay serviceable at 1080p even as games get more demanding. But even after years of extra power consumption, the total cost of the 280X is still under the 970.

Perhaps someone needs a card that can both game and compute. If you need CUDA, then NV is the no-brainer. Otherwise, AMD tends to have the edge.

Yes, all other things being equal, the card that runs cooler and on less power is preferable. The problem is that all other things are rarely equal, so blanket statements rarely make sense.

 

[littleleo]

Customers will buy what they want to buy and $25 a year in saving won't affect their decision. I wish more would buy AMD I make much better spiff off AMD then Nvidia. Back in the day when they were fighting for dominance both paid good spiff. But now Nvidia has cut back since they control so much of the market. AMD is desperate so they offer much better incentives. Still Nvidia out sells AMD close to 10 to 1. I always have to ask if I can quote them AMD most pass on it before I can quote them.

 

[ErikVinoya]

Lol last time I checked, I was pointing out the effective price difference when you consider the extra cost of electricity. Now I'm poor, I don't have my priorities in life in proper order, and we're now debating if the 390 is better than 970. This is why I love these threads

 

[Fulgurant]

Of course, but that point is a non sequitur. You can't simultaneously take into account differences in the upfront cost, which are usually inconsequential in the grand scheme (10, 20, 30 bucks maybe), and then dismiss similar price differences in upkeep because "LOL you must be poor if you care."

You either care or you don't about the money. But if you're commenting on an article that purports to compare cards based in large part on their cost efficiency, then you're stuck with the default posture of caring for the purpose of this discussion.

I'm not dismissing anything. You're simply not recognizing all the ways someone can feel like they're getting value out of how they spend their money. Many people are okay paying extra if it makes them feel they're getting some extra performance, whether or not it's measurable. Some people have brand loyalty and will pay the higher operating costs to stay with it. Let's try some specific cases.

I'm not recognizing people's feelings because that wasn't the topic. Poster X says, "Hey, maybe these cards aren't quite as cost efficient as they look because you'll pay more in upkeep." Poster Y says, "LOL, that's like 7 cents a day dude. It doesn't matter."

I replied to that exchange. I don't care whether you're poor or you're swimming in money. The topic is cost efficiency. In a discussion about cost efficiency, you have to acknowledge both the sticker price and the upkeep cost of the product.

All the rest of what you wrote is fine and good and true. It's just not responsive. You may not have argued that cost efficiency doesn't matter because "LOL you need to reorganize your life," but that clearly happened upthread.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

$25 a year difference isn't much of anything. A bad summer, or winter, could have more influence, on your bill, than that.

When you're talkin about a purchase comparison that might boil down to ~$25, it's important. The topic is cost efficiency for graphics cards, not "how much does my electric bill suck overall."

Keep in mind that that was calculated for 3 hours of gaming daily. Also know your electrical bill costs. Of the cards I calculated, the 380 was absolutely the worst in efficincy, the 960 used almost half the power of it. 370 was fantastic. 390 was okay. 390X was good.

 

[theyeti87]

The link on the R7 260X has amazon selling that for over $300? Wth?

 

[spagalicious]

I do agree with most people that AMD has the edge in the mid to upper tier segments.

However, this is at stock/vender bump clocks. The thing most forget are Nvidia's Boost 2.0 clocks. This typically boosts performance by 10-30% over stock/vendor clocks straight out of the box. No voltage bumps, no custom fan profiles, nothing.

So stock for stock, AMD has the edge but AMD simply cannot match the overclockability and low power consumption Nvidia can offer. To me, that may be worth the extra cash.