Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table (Archive)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
May 30, 2018
4
0
10
0
Pricing is misleading. On Newegg: Vega 64 per the provided link is $589 not the $689 listed. The $579 1080 is OOS. Vega 56 links to reference instead of proper model which is priced at $529 ($479 with rebates) not the $650 reference. The 1080 Ti is $479 per the provided link not the $449 listed.

Basically all the pricing is borked to make Nvidia look like a distinctly better value, when in reality pricing is about even. Wtf Tom's?
 
May 30, 2018
4
0
10
0
Pricing is misleading. On Newegg: Vega 64 per the provided link is $589 not the $689 listed. The $579 1080 is OOS. Vega 56 links to reference instead of proper model which is priced at $529 ($479 with rebates) not the $650 reference. The 1080 Ti is $479 per the provided link not the $449 listed.

Basically all the pricing is borked to make Nvidia look like a distinctly better value, when in reality pricing is about even. Wtf Tom's?
 

zthomas

Honorable
Sep 13, 2013
194
0
10,690
3
I recently got a titan xp bought from Nvidia.. when playing on steam seems the card itself gears down pushing the resolution down a few notches when booting up for TF2 but also falls off to a black screen and is unplayable, gotta hit the win button to bring the screen back to windows.. when it first happened I had shut down the machine, blue/black screen happened with my 980 a couple of times anybody else had this problem?
The black screen was still happening as of yesterday.. my thoughts were downloading steam again.. instead I cleaned out the steam cache.. I think the problem is solved..
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador

You'd probably have better luck asking this in a more appropriate sub-forum, like Graphics Cards:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum-33.html

That said, I wonder what power supply you're using and whether your PC is stable under stress tests that don't involve graphics.
 

David_693

Prominent
Apr 17, 2017
10
0
510
0
Interesting to see that my 295x2 is still high up on the AMD list. Still waiting for the next big thing from AMD. Or I may finally jump to Team Green for the 1080 Ti follow up.
 
The new top chart of the current GPUs seems interesting and very helpful.

One oddity - the RX 570 and GTX 1060 3GB appear to be incorrectly swapped.

Thrillos, I know you mentioned the integrated graphics column. That *can* be helpful for the new Ryzen-based APUs, but the Intel stuff, well, in my VERY limited anecdotal experience, the Intel integrated HD 530, for example, seemed to perform far worse relative to the cards in the same rank, when I'd dealt with it.

For all intents and purposes, having the current Intel stuff on there is useless.

Maybe the new Intel/Vega combo chips (ok, maybe it's Intel/Polaris) could be interesting.

Likewise, it might also be interesting to have the Ryzen APUs, although I imagine performance could vary on those a lot based on the type and speed of system RAM, and whether it's single vs dual channel, etc., which might make ranking those a little more difficult.
 

Thrillos

Commendable
Oct 20, 2016
5
0
1,520
1
@KING_V
I got a i5 cpu with the Intel HD Graphics 4600 and I got my hands on a NVIDIA GTX 720. I want a rough comparison of the 2 so I know which is better for games. I had that before and now I don't.
Also at work I got a number of different old nvidia and amd graphics cards (720, 610, 8400GS just to name a few) spare from old pc's that died. I would love to know if they can help another newer pc in the graphics department or it would make no difference or even be worse than the intergrated Intel chips. I used this webpage alot for this and now I miss it.
It was the 3rd column of the Legacy GPU Hierarchy table and it was very useful to me
 

Thrillos

Commendable
Oct 20, 2016
5
0
1,520
1
(sorry don't see an edit button so I gotta create a new answer)
Many people play games on intergrated graphics. Games like Minecraft, Smite, LOL, Legends of Grimrock, Age of Empires HD and many more don't need a graphics card to play but work fine on intergrated gpu. So I think comparing those to the NVidia or AMD solutions gives you a rough estimate of where you would be after buying a new card.
If other's don't find this info useful then I will have to look for it elsewhere.
Thank you
 
Oh, I would absolutely agree with you that it's useful to have, it just seemed that the rankings for the latest of the integrated Intel solutions portrayed them as much more capable than they really were.

Granted, my experience is just one anecdotal incident, and it may have been just as much about one or two specific games, but that going from the integrated Intel to a stand-alone card that was only one tier higher resulted in such a dramatic performance difference (around 10 fps to about 25 fps) made me question the positions of the Intel solutions in the rankings.
 

While I agree that it was useful to have, there are other sites that arguably do a better job of that, such as UserBench, which lets you enter any two GPUs and get a rough estimate of how their performance compares, based on user-submitted benchmarks. It might not always be 100% accurate in terms of real-world performance, but it's generally pretty close, and let's you see a visual representation of the range in which results landed. It isn't exactly easy to see at a glance which cards fall around the same same performance level across generations though, which is where this chart can be useful. This chart often seemed to have spotty coverage for integrated graphics chipsets though.


Intel's integrated graphics are affected by memory speed and configuration as well. Particularly dual-channel vs single channel memory can have a big effect. And in something like a laptop, performance can often depend on how a processor's cooling and configurable TDP are set up.
 

Fireball455

Distinguished
Jan 18, 2006
15
0
18,510
0
Where do I find the listings of the integrated graphics? This hierarchy used to list Intel's integrated graphics in the same table. Please help.
 

Thrillos

Commendable
Oct 20, 2016
5
0
1,520
1




Intel's intergrated graphics have been deleted. They don't exist in the table anymore. What you see as intergrated are nvidia and amd's own chips.
 


In the specific system I saw this in, it was an i5-6400 Dell Tower with 8GB of DDR2400 in dual channel 2x4gb configuration. To be honest, I was a little surprised at how poorly the integrated Intel performed relative to an R7 250E (which was only one step higher on the hierarchy chart).
 


The 1060 has the 3 and 6GB version listed separately in the to "current gen" chart, whereas they only have the single entry in the big chart in the lower part of the page.

The RX560d isn't readily available outside of China, and as an OEM part, as I understand it. It's a cut-down 560.
 
Apr 4, 2018
4
0
10
0
Great change, but could be more useful to have at least have a few cards from the previous generation in the new style, for comparison. Along with the latest gen of integrated graphics as well.
 

zthomas

Honorable
Sep 13, 2013
194
0
10,690
3


Not the power.. I got a 700.. I use to have a 1200 after my last upgrade.. then one night couple months ago.. the power blew up.. no shit.. the loud sound got my outta bed.. thinking someone fired a shot and came through my front windows.. if was that loud.. I emptied the steam cache.. it musta been jam packed.. I played a couple hours on TF2 afterwards..

 

n_mag

Honorable
Mar 10, 2013
5
0
10,510
0
I miss the old charts :p. It had concrete results with FPS, wattages, etc and made sense to me. New charts are too abstract for me to research with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY