GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)
in Desktops ·
👍🙂
Edward Thompson86 said:Hope it treats you well..
134 posts shown.
Edward Thompson86 said:Hope it treats you well..
Jesse Sanchez4 said:It’s got absolutely nothing to do with the graphics card.
velvetcobra6 said:I’ve got a question—my job involves taking a ton of screenshots, which makes my life way easier.
The problem is, my screenshot quality is pretty terrible and looks all grainy—compared to my coworker's, whose shots look so crisp you can't even tell they aren't vectors.
I'm wondering what actually determines that quality—is it the monitor and its settings?
I'm using an old monitor, and no matter what I tweak, nothing changes.
If the monitor is the issue, any recommendations on what I should buy?
wiredotter14 said:those are usually the 4GB versions, which—honestly—still beat out the GTX1650 quite convincingly. They're totally fine for 1080p. The 8GB ones run a bit pricier
It’s funny how differently everyone interpreted what velvetlynx3 meant by "old crap."
🤣🍿🎉🍿
The RX580 might be old school, but it still absolutely smokes all those other cards in its class when you look at pure value.
The GTX1650 is just old junk—it's decent for an OEM build if you can snag one for $500-$200
As for that RTX3070 stuff... people on this forum and Craigslist don't really care how much Ronald Bishop58 paid for his 3070 years ago.
Regarding the RX6500, that card runs on PCIe x4. So, if someone doesn't have a motherboard and CPU combo that both support PCIe 4.0, they're stuck with PCIe 3.0 x4—which basically performs like PCIe 2.0 x8... which throttles it so hard the performance can actually drop below an RX580.
There's a pretty good chance someone buying that card won't have PCIe 4.0, making it a really poor choice overall.
An RX6400 would be a decent pick for around $400--new, otherwise it's a total joke.$167
velvetlynx3 said:Oh yeah, because nothing beats browsing Craigslist for old junk being sold at full retail price... truly a dream scenario...
ironhound95 said:The RX6700 handles 1440p just fine, too.
Is this AOC one really the best bang-for-your-buck option?
ironhound95 said:RX6700, 10GB
I'll take a look—thanks!
Jeffrey Cook82 said:Give me some suggestions—maybe even a link or two if you've got them. 👍
Jeffrey Cook82 said:So, if you had to pick one of these, which way would you go?
Nvidia GeForce RTX series
Nvidia GeForce RTX series
Nvidia GeForce RTX series
wanderingbison9 said:I am definitely pulling an all-nighter tonight.
wanderingbison9 said:You’re being rude—maybe save that attitude for someone you actually know, especially if you're being unprovoked. "2K" could mean a hundred different things; do we really have to play guessing games about what you meant? Nobody actually calls monitors that resolution "2K." In my line of work, 1920 and 2K are treated as the exact same thing, yet you're acting like they're interchangeable. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for clarification.
urbanheron4 said:No offense intended, I just can't assume what everyone knows—or doesn't. You'd be surprised how many people miss this. You kind of expect everything to just work out of the box, but Windows defaults to 60 Hz, and since the setting isn't exactly front and center, a lot of folks just overlook it.
urbanheron4 said:...
By the way, under those Display settings at the bottom, click on Advanced display settings and check if you actually switched the refresh rate over to 165 Hz, or if it's still stuck at 60 Hz. Windows doesn't just do it for you—you have to manually toggle it. If you've got a 165 Hz monitor, you really want to make sure you're actually using it.