[SOLVED] Opinions/Experiences with "High/Middle End" graphics card

[AndyDalis]

So it's that magical time of the year and I seriously need a new graphics card at this point. It works but I'm considering getting into VR. So, as usual, I looked at the review articles for graphics card running on what I remember. As usual, more lines came out so I will be needing some opinions. So pulling from Tom's Hardware guide on by buying a graphics card what is/are the community's opinions on these?

AMD Radeon RX 570, Nvidia GTX 1060, AMD Radeon RX 580, AMD Radeon RX 590, Nvidia GTX 1070	Mid-range cards
Nvidia RTX 2060, AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, Nvidia GTX 1070 Ti, AMD Radeon RX Vega 64, Nvidia GTX 1080, Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti, Nvidia RTX 2080, Nvidia Titan XP	High-end

As well as the new? Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Super, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

My PC whenever I do use it..... got to love school, is used for gaming at max to near max settings with no to lots of mods, all though I do plan on trying to get into VR.
I've always used Nvidia and would prefer to stick with it unless there is a clear gain from going AMD.
The current budget is weird if the card is on amazon, I would be willing to go up to $600 and anywhere else $400 max
Current Build:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/38M2w6

 

[Darkbreeze]

VR aside, what resolution do you normally game at?

How many monitors do you intend to game on?

What games specifically, not including VR titles, do you seriously plan on playing mostly or currently play primarily?

If you are gaming at 1080p now, do you have ANY plans at all, even moderately considering, moving up to 1440p or 4k at any time in the next year or two?

 

[AndyDalis]

VR aside, what resolution do you normally game at?

How many monitors do you intend to game on?

What games specifically, not including VR titles, do you seriously plan on playing mostly or currently play primarily?

If you are gaming at 1080p now, do you have ANY plans at all, even moderately considering, moving up to 1440p or 4k at any time in the next year or two?

Sorry for the delay, work and school has been awful.
Resolution: 1080 min
Games: Skyrim, Minecraft, Starbound, Astroneer
In terms of upgrading, I don't see a reason for going to 1440p or 4K.
VR is a maybe tho

 

[cryoburner]

As well as the new? Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Super, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti

As a rough summary of their relative performance, the 1650 performs below an RX 570/1060 3GB, the 1650 SUPER appears to perform about on par with an RX 580/1060 6GB on average (based on the one review I've seen for it so far, as it just came out), the 1660 performs roughly in-between a 1060 6GB and a 1070, the 1660 Ti is about on par with a 1070, and the 1660 SUPER just a little behind that card. The 16-series is pretty much just the lower-end of the 20-series, and also lacks hardware support for raytraced lighting effects, though those are only found as options in a handful of games so far, and cause a big hit to performance even with the current hardware support. Even the 20-series cards are arguably not powerful enough to run raytracing all that well, but might be okay at 1080p if you can cope with lower frame rates.

There's also the newer Radeon cards to consider, with the RX 5700 performing a little behind a 2060 SUPER, and the 5700 XT performing a bit faster than a 2070 (there's only around a 5% performance difference between a 2060 SUPER and a 2070).

I probably wouldn't spend more than $400 on a card for 1080p gaming. Cards around that price level (RTX 2060 SUPER/2070/RX 5700/5700 XT) should offer more than three times the graphics performance of a GTX 960, but you will often run into the CPU limiting frame rates at "lower" resolutions like 1080p. Worth asking, do you have a high refresh rate monitor, like 144Hz, or just a standard refresh rate like 60 or 75Hz? If your monitor only updates the image 60-75 times per second, even those cards might be overkill, as rendering additional frames that won't get displayed could be considered something of a waste. I suppose the extra performance might be useful for VR, but a lot of that depends on the resolution of the VR headset you decide to go with.

 

[Darkbreeze]

The RX 5700 or GTX 2060 would be the highest cards I'd consider for 1080p. I don't see any reason to do so when these cards can give you ultra settings at 1080p in pretty much any existing game. The rest, is likely to be a CPU bound situation if you are looking to do high refresh rate/high FPS 1080p gaming.

 

[AndyDalis]

As a rough summary of their relative performance, the 1650 performs below an RX 570/1060 3GB, the 1650 SUPER appears to perform about on par with an RX 580/1060 6GB on average (based on the one review I've seen for it so far, as it just came out), the 1660 performs roughly in-between a 1060 6GB and a 1070, the 1660 Ti is about on par with a 1070, and the 1660 SUPER just a little behind that card. The 16-series is pretty much just the lower-end of the 20-series, and also lacks hardware support for raytraced lighting effects, though those are only found as options in a handful of games so far, and cause a big hit to performance even with the current hardware support. Even the 20-series cards are arguably not powerful enough to run raytracing all that well, but might be okay at 1080p if you can cope with lower frame rates.

There's also the newer Radeon cards to consider, with the RX 5700 performing a little behind a 2060 SUPER, and the 5700 XT performing a bit faster than a 2070 (there's only around a 5% performance difference between a 2060 SUPER and a 2070).

I probably wouldn't spend more than $400 on a card for 1080p gaming. Cards around that price level (RTX 2060 SUPER/2070/RX 5700/5700 XT) should offer more than three times the graphics performance of a GTX 960, but you will often run into the CPU limiting frame rates at "lower" resolutions like 1080p. Worth asking, do you have a high refresh rate monitor, like 144Hz, or just a standard refresh rate like 60 or 75Hz? If your monitor only updates the image 60-75 times per second, even those cards might be overkill, as rendering additional frames that won't get displayed could be considered something of a waste. I suppose the extra performance might be useful for VR, but a lot of that depends on the resolution of the VR headset you decide to go with.

I don't have high refresh rate monitors.... in fact I should replace them sooner rather than later.
Update price list with monitors:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/3zdbK4

 

[Darkbreeze]

So, you never answered my original question regarding multi monitor gaming. Do you game on both monitors, or will only one monitor be used for the actual gaming and the other used for peripheral uses?

 

[cryoburner]

It seems like having a pair of bezels in the center of a multimonitor setup would make most games completely unplayable, so I'm guessing they likely only game on one at a time. : P

 

[AndyDalis]

So, you never answered my original question regarding multi monitor gaming. Do you game on both monitors, or will only one monitor be used for the actual gaming and the other used for peripheral uses?

Applogize for that. No I don't do mutlimonitor. I use one as an extra for like chat and such

 

[Darkbreeze]

It seems like having a pair of bezels in the center of a multimonitor setup would make most games completely unplayable, so I'm guessing they likely only game on one at a time. : P

Funny, there are a LOT of people who do exactly that, so.........

 

[Darkbreeze]

For your budget and with the VR qualification factored as a serious consideration, I think this is an excellent choice. Not just because I have this same card and can vouch for the fact that it is an excellent product, or because for an extra 25 bucks you can add an extra five years to the warranty for a total of 8 years coverage (Or 13 years coverage total for an extra 50 dollars, either of which can be added later so long as it is within 90 days), but because it absolutely gives you an Ultra option for just about any 1080p game plus the additional fact that if you DO happen to decide you want to move up to 1440p, it's a pretty capable card at that resolution as well so long as you're willing to make a few quality setting concessions.

It's very hard to find a company with better after the sale customer support than EVGA and they've been in the business much longer than most other manufacturers, so they've actually got this down to a science. But in general, the 2060 Super is a good choice even for what might mostly be a 1080p scenario because if you want this to remain capable enough for that at the highest levels for a number of years then you want something that is slightly overkill NOW so that later when the hardware requirements increase, and they will, because they always do, you won't find yourself in need of a new card again in two years. If you look at it in terms of the 980 TI was the flagship card a few years back and now that is outperformed by the 2060 Super, and that few years old flagship card now struggles with Ultra settings at 1080p on some games, it definitely makes sense to hedge your bets a little bit especially since you don't actually have to go outside the budget to do so.


PCPartPicker Part List

Video Card: EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER 8 GB XC ULTRA GAMING Video Card ($419.98 @ Newegg)
Total: $419.98
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-11-27 23:29 EST-0500

 

[TJ Hooker]

I don't think I'd spend $420 on a 2060S when you can get a 5700 XT for the same or less that performs ~5-10% better.

 

[Darkbreeze]

No, it actually doesn't. If you look at minimum frame rates, the 2060 Super has higher minimum frame rates in more titles than it doesn't on most reviews I've looked at. The 5700 XT has higher maximum frame rates, but that doesn't seem to hold up when you look at minimum FPS, which to me is more important than maximum or average FPS because that's where problems become evident.

It also uses considerably more power. So, more heat, bigger PSU. Not by a lot, but enough to put you into probably a 100w higher recommended capacity and we also know that over time AMD cards have historically seen larger power increases from driver changes than Nvidia cards ever have, so that's something to watch for as well. It certainly happened with Vega cards, but these are not those I know.

Overall, either card is a good choice, but you certainly can't get the same level of customer service through Sapphire, XFX or MSI as you'll get from EVGA, nor the option for the very reasonable extended warranty, but if you can get a 5700 XT for a price you like I would not be against that either. I just think the 2060S is the better option overall at 1080p and both cards are honestly more than what's necessary for this resolution, for now anyhow.