Question Help Me Pick Which of These GPU is The Best

Dec 8, 2019
42
3
35
0
Hello everyone! I been thinking of upgrading my GPU for a while. Currently I have the GTX 970 Gaming 4GB.
https://www.amazon.com/MSI-GAMING-GTX-970-4G/dp/B00NN0GEXQ/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=GTX+970+Gaming+4GB&qid=1575867189&sr=8-3

I have done some research for the GPU that I want. The price range is under $250. I understand that It won't produce the same performance as a 2060 or RX 5700.

So, to give you an idea of why I want to upgrade. I was searching for SLI. Mostly all of the videos, articles I found stated that it's not the best idea to SLI two GPUs. I was thinking of buying a second GTX 970, but I don't want to do that know. The performance will only increase slightly and I really don't want to deal with too much noise and heat.

So, here are the three GPUs I picked.
Radeon Rx 590 Fatboy 8GB

GeForce GTX 1660 XC
GTX 1650 Super
Please, give me your feedback and advice for which one I should buy. I really don't know a lot about GPU. I built my current PC myself but that doesn't mean I'm an expert in parts, so this is where you can help me. Just to give you more details into what I do the most, here a list.
  • Programming Language (Visual Studio)
  • Graphics Design (Illustrator)
  • Digital Drawing (Photoshop)
  • Gaming (doesn't matter which one)
My PC Build
Motherboard: ASUS Gryphon Z87 LGA
GPU: Geforce GTX 970 Gaming 4GB
CPU: Intel i7-4770
RAM: 16GB DDR3
Power Supply: 750W
 
Last edited:
The FatBoy OC+ gives you a slight overclock above what the FatBoy Core Edition offers. That is NOT going to be worth an extra $60. Or, to put it another way, you're looking at 5% more performance, if you're lucky, for 33% more money.

Gaming-wise:
The RX 590 performs a little better than the GTX 970.

The GTX 1660 performs better than the RX 590, and consumes significantly less power than the RX 590.

The GTX 1650 SUPER consumes even less power, and performs about equal to what your GTX 970 does.

RX 590 ~ 225W
GTX 1660 ~ 125W
GTX 1650 Super ~ 100W

I don't know where the cards fall in terms of the other three metrics you mentioned.

It's definitely worthwhile to let us know the exact brand and model of your existing power supply. Regardless of wattage capacity or efficiency ratings, listed, some PSUs are great, some are garbage, and there's a wide range in between.
 
Reactions: drandy2019
I would put the RX590 performance = GTX1660 for all practical purposes. Usually no more than about 5% slower, and sometimes faster, so close enough.

From purely a performance/$ standpoint, the RX590 is the winner. The power consumption (as KingV informed) is a factor to some people though.

For AMD cards, power consumption isn't black-and-white though. AMD has some power saving features that rarely/ever get factored in.
  • With AMD WattMan, you can DIRECTLY adjust voltages and frequencies for each of 7 performance "states" (7 frequency levels), which is a useful tool to minimize voltage at any given frequency (most AMD cards of late run 50-100mV higher voltage than what's required to be stable, which could save 30-40W without sacrificing any MHz)
  • AMD Chill or FRTC allows the GPU to automatically throttle down its frequency to save power in less demanding scenes and games. Using 3rd party software, you can manually achieve the same result that FRTC accomplishes by setting a frequency target profile for a game (that you need to test out to determine what FPS it gives you for that game), but if you have a variable refresh rate monitor, AMD Chill has no rival. Chill basically throttles back the GPU when in-game movement ceases It has upper and lower bound FPS targets that you set.
Not trying to persuade you either way.
 
Last edited:
Dec 8, 2019
42
3
35
0
The FatBoy OC+ gives you a slight overclock above what the FatBoy Core Edition offers. That is NOT going to be worth an extra $60. Or, to put it another way, you're looking at 5% more performance, if you're lucky, for 33% more money.

Gaming-wise:
The RX 590 performs a little better than the GTX 970.

The GTX 1660 performs better than the RX 590, and consumes significantly less power than the RX 590.

The GTX 1650 SUPER consumes even less power, and performs about equal to what your GTX 970 does.

RX 590 ~ 225W
GTX 1660 ~ 125W
GTX 1650 Super ~ 100W

I don't know where the cards fall in terms of the other three metrics you mentioned.

It's definitely worthwhile to let us know the exact brand and model of your existing power supply. Regardless of wattage capacity or efficiency ratings, listed, some PSUs are great, some are garbage, and there's a wide range in between.
This is the exact power supply I got: https://www.newegg.com/corsair-cx-series-cx750m-750w/p/N82E16817139051?Item=N82E16817139051
 
Dec 8, 2019
42
3
35
0
I would put the RX590 performance = GTX1660 for all practical purposes. Usually no more than about 5% slower, and sometimes faster, so close enough.

From purely a performance/$ standpoint, the RX590 is the winner. The power consumption (as KingV informed) is a factor to some people though.

For AMD cards, power consumption isn't black-and-white though. AMD has some power saving features that rarely/ever get factored in.
  • With AMD WattMan, you can DIRECTLY adjust voltages and frequencies for each of 7 performance "states" (7 frequency levels), which is a useful tool to minimize voltage at any given frequency (most AMD cards of late run 50-100mV higher voltage than what's required to be stable, which could save 30-40W without sacrificing any MHz)
  • AMD Chill or FRTC allows the GPU to automatically throttle down its frequency to save power in less demanding scenes and games. Using 3rd party software, you can manually achieve the same result that FRTC accomplishes by setting a frequency target profile for a game (that you need to test out to determine what FPS it gives you for that game), but if you have a variable refresh rate monitor, AMD Chill has no rival. Chill basically throttles back the GPU when in-game movement ceases It has upper and lower bound FPS targets that you set.
Not trying to persuade you either way.
Alright, thanks for the reply. I would like it if you give me any suggestion for other GPUs then? My budget is <$250. Which GPU will have a bigger difference compared to my current GTX 970 Gaming 4G. I know my GPU can handle any games at ultra, is just that sometimes there are others things I would have loved if it ran better.
 
Dec 8, 2019
42
3
35
0
The FatBoy OC+ gives you a slight overclock above what the FatBoy Core Edition offers. That is NOT going to be worth an extra $60. Or, to put it another way, you're looking at 5% more performance, if you're lucky, for 33% more money.

Gaming-wise:
The RX 590 performs a little better than the GTX 970.

The GTX 1660 performs better than the RX 590, and consumes significantly less power than the RX 590.

The GTX 1650 SUPER consumes even less power, and performs about equal to what your GTX 970 does.

RX 590 ~ 225W
GTX 1660 ~ 125W
GTX 1650 Super ~ 100W

I don't know where the cards fall in terms of the other three metrics you mentioned.

It's definitely worthwhile to let us know the exact brand and model of your existing power supply. Regardless of wattage capacity or efficiency ratings, listed, some PSUs are great, some are garbage, and there's a wide range in between.
Thanks for the reply and information about the power consumption. I would like it if you could give me any suggestion for other GPUs. My budget is <$250. Which GPU. I'm looking for a GPU that will show a bigger difference than my current GPU (mostly in the gaming area and speed).
 
Alright, thanks for the reply. I would like it if you give me any suggestion for other GPUs then? My budget is <$250. Which GPU will have a bigger difference compared to my current GTX 970 Gaming 4G. I know my GPU can handle any games at ultra, is just that sometimes there are others things I would have loved if it ran better.
TBH, if you can, wait until next year's launches. Nvidias Ampere GPUs will be 7nm and have much improved ray tracing. AMDs 2020 GPU will have ray tracing (at all).

I have an RX480 (clocked @ 1400MHz so a hot-clocked RX580 effectively) and a 1440p 144Hz VRR monitor and I'm holding out even though it's massively painful.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: drandy2019
Dec 8, 2019
42
3
35
0
TBH, if you can, wait until next year's launches. Nvidias Ampere GPUs will be 7nm and have much improved ray tracing. AMDs 2020 GPU will have ray tracing (at all).

I have an RX480 (clocked @ 1400MHz so a hot-clocked RX580 effectively) and a 1440p 144Hz VRR monitor and I'm holding out even though it's massively painful.
So, you're suggesting the 2020 GPU from AMD or the Nvidias? Also, that will probably cost a lot since they are new and I don't want to pay a lot for a GPU. I want something good, but not something crazy like the 2060, RX 5700
 
Thanks for the reply and information about the power consumption. I would like it if you could give me any suggestion for other GPUs. My budget is <$250. Which GPU. I'm looking for a GPU that will show a bigger difference than my current GPU (mostly in the gaming area and speed).
Ah, dang, didn't notice that you'd linked to your PSU before I asked.

The 1660 Super will make the most difference, at least in gaming performance, relative to what you have currently.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#c=450&sort=price&page=1
 
Reactions: drandy2019
Dec 8, 2019
42
3
35
0
Ah, dang, didn't notice that you'd linked to your PSU before I asked.

The 1660 Super will make the most difference, at least in gaming performance, relative to what you have currently.

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#c=450&sort=price&page=1
Thank you, I'll take that into consideration. Do you think any of these brands will be better than the other or should I go for the cheapest?

I mean, I see some GPU with one fan. Any particular reason for that or if it actually makes a difference?
 

greigm78

Prominent
Sep 28, 2018
167
17
595
1
Thank you, I'll take that into consideration. Do you think any of these brands will be better than the other or should I go for the cheapest?

I mean, I see some GPU with one fan. Any particular reason for that or if it actually makes a difference?
One fan is noisier as it has to work harder to achieve the same cooling effect of the twin fan design. Just take that in to consideration when buying. If noise isn't a problem for you then they are generally cheaper. Marginally though.
 
Reactions: drandy2019

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS