GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

I'm holding out for something else at $2,200 😬

Is an RX 480 4GB worth customizing?

I'm seeing the reference 8GB models going for over $2,200 out there.

Honestly, that MSI GTX 1060 6GB priced at $2,400+ is actually a fantastic deal.

Nah

RX 480 8 😬

That’s actually a solid starting price once they finally get them back in stock.

Basically, if you filter for everything instead of just what's currently sitting there, you'll see their prices should be pretty decent once they restock. It beats dealing with this overpriced junk being sold right now—like seeing an RX 470 8 GB going for over $200.

I've decided to pull the trigger on a new GPU. I'm going with an NVIDIA GTX 1060.
One quick question though—I can't find any actual reviews for the ASUS DUAL-GTX1060-O6G; everything I find is just for the Strix models. There are some unboxing videos on YouTube 😁
but nothing deep. If anyone has a link, I'd appreciate it.

I'm mostly eyeing the Gigabyte gaming G1, but I noticed this ASUS model $67 carries a higher price tag. I'm wondering if it's actually worth it or if I'm just paying for the brand name. Maybe better cooling or some decent overclocking potential?

Then there's the personal bias part. I've always stuck with ASUS graphics cards, and their motherboards for the last few years too... but this Strix version is just way too steep at $1000 + even if that heatsink does look killer. 😁

I don't think Dell is really worth much anymore; they just don't seem to cut it lately, even when it comes to their cooling setups.

In my opinion, any decent dual-fan cooler should be more than enough to keep a GTX 1060 running smoothly.

https://www.amazon.com/msi-video-card...dmi-dvi-d.aspx
https://www.amazon.com/gigabyte-video...i-2xdvi-d.aspx

So, I'm leaning toward the Alienware gaming laptop. That's pretty much decided.
Personally, I think it'll be an interesting change. My last Nvidia card was a GTX 275😁 and I've been sticking strictly to Intel graphics since then, so moving back to Nvidia will be something else.

I just hope I don't run into the same headache I had last time. I bought an Nvidia card once and ended up having to replace my entire motherboard because it wouldn't work on that crappy Abit board with the 975x chipset. Had to upgrade to a P45 just to get things running.
Man... I still remember being so fed up with Nvidia that I actually sent them a hate mail. 😁

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

I didn't get a chance to ask, though—what else are you running in that build? I guess I just hope the rest of your setup is beefy enough to actually keep up with the GPU. 😉

crimsonstag84 said:I just didn't ask what the rest of your build looks like. Hopefully everything else is beefy enough to keep up with the GPU. 😉

Asus Z97-A
I7 4790K
XFX 550W

Should be plenty. 😁

Back when I swapped platforms in late 2014, I was thinking about picking up a gtx 970, but I backed off after all that memory drama. Since I’d already ditched my old hd7870, I grabbed an R9 280 x instead. I've been running it since then, but now it's finally time to swap it out for an Nvidia GTX1060.

New GPU prices are finally starting to look much more attractive

Lol, these AiB partners are going to completely wreck AMD with their pricing 🤣 it’s honestly ridiculous how AiB brands are charging the exact same price for cards that had a $50 difference in MSRP 🤔 It’s obvious the RX series needed way more "polishing" 🤷

AMD put way more effort into their reference cards compared to the Nvidia GTX1060, and yet here we are—they're power throttling and basically impossible to find.
So much for the big promise that AMD reference cards would set the benchmark for quality and pricing. It just didn't happen. Meanwhile, Nvidia managed to flood the market with custom cards almost immediately, making them way easier to track down than anything from AMD.
Either AMD is dealing with massive yield issues and capacity bottlenecks, or they completely botched their relationships with AIB partners. Honestly, seeing those AMD exclusive AIBi involved makes me think it's a perfect storm of early power delivery failures combined with terrible availability.

AMD doesn't have a throttling issue. Their actual problem was drawing too much power from the slot—which happened to Nvidia cards back in the 700 series too. My 750 Ti pulls more than 75W as it is.

Thermal throttling means performance drops because the card can't hit its factory boost targets. If the card stays at its factory boost clocks regardless of heat, that isn't throttling. You only talk about throttling if it drops below the base clock, and I haven't seen a single review where a card actually fell below its base clock.

wiredotter14 said:Basically, what we expected from AMD reference cards—setting a gold standard for quality and pricing—just didn't happen. On the flip side, Nvidia managed to roll out custom cards immediately, which actually seems to make them more accessible than AMD's lineup right now.

That is definitely not an accurate assessment. Unlike Nvidia, AMD doesn't care about reference blower coolers at all, nor do they have any serious long-term plans for them. Their only purpose is to provide a specific cooler for presentations and initial sales until the custom models arrive. It wouldn't make sense for them to show up to a keynote with some Gigabyte Windforce card and claim it's their new GPU. The cooler isn't theirs, and it would bother their other partners if they showed blatant favoritism toward one specific cooling design. If you recall my previous posts, I predicted that reference models wouldn't even exist in the long run. I also noted that AMD custom GPUs wouldn't be significantly more expensive than the reference versions (at least, that has been the trend so far).

I disagree regarding availability as well. I’ve been tracking the reports, and both sides were equally difficult to find if you consider the AMD stock wasn't higher. For instance, AMD reclaimed over 7% of their market share in Q2 (compared to just 1-2% gains in the three quarters prior). During Q2, the reference 480 was available for only two days (June 29th), whereas the GTX 1080 and 1070 were "available" for over a month during that same quarter.

GTX 460 2GB sitting right under $333(only $999 😬)

By the way, here is my comparison test between the 460 2GB and the 4GB version

Timothy Kim60 said:Maybe a 460 2GB if you're feeling lucky. below $333 (999 😬)

By the way. GTX 950 2GB vs 4GB test

Not a bad buy, I guess.

I guess what that video is trying to say is either the card just can't actually tap into all 4GB, or maybe games aren't even hitting that limit yet. Hard to tell.

The price gap between the 2GB and 4GB models is way wider over there than it is here at home. He’s arguing that it just doesn't make sense—you either save up until it hits $470 or you just grab the 2GB version for $460. Out of the 13 games he tested, there was zero difference in 10 of them, a tiny bit in 2, but nothing you'd actually notice while playing. The only exception is Doom, where the performance gap is massive because that game absolutely hates 2GB cards.

Games are probably just going to keep eating up more memory because that's clearly the trend lately, so I guess $67 grabbing an extra 2GB isn't actually a bad move. Price-wise, you're basically looking at the same deal as a GTX 950 with its 2GB, even if the 370 costs a bit more since it has 4GB. It’s honestly a pretty solid best buy in that bracket

EDIT: here we go again with the double posting on this forum

It’s pretty interesting to see how developers (at least for these specific titles) actually define their minimum versus recommended requirements.

First of all, please keep in mind our targets with minimum and recommended specs. At minimum spec, which is a HD 7870 2GB or GTX 660 2GB, paired with an Core i3-2100, we aim to give you an average of 30 fps, at 1280*720 resolution, but this is at the low quality preset. At recommended spec, which is a RX 480 4GB or GTX 970 4GB, paired with an i7-3770K, our target is to offer you 60fps average at 1080p, but at the High quality preset.

WE also offer a Very high and Ultra designed for users whose hardware significantly exceeds the recommended specs or those willing to sacrifice some frame rates for better visuals. If your rig is above the recommended tier, don't feel stuck—even if you can't max out everything on Very High, try tweaking individual settings to find your own sweet spot!

Just like we saw with the Witcher developers, "recommended" doesn't necessarily mean you're getting every single fine detail turned up to eleven.

What kind of GPU would you guys recommend as an upgrade for this setup:

XFX HD 7850 2GB,
AMD FX-6300 overclocked to 4 GHz

My budget is somewhere between $150 and $667, depending on what I get for my money.
Also, what’s the absolute limit for a graphics card with this CPU before I start hitting a major bottleneck?

It depends on what you're playing. If it's newer titles that actually utilize multiple cores, you won't run into much trouble.
But honestly, in some games, you’re already hitting a bottleneck.

Something like this should work for you.
https://www.newegg.com/p/amd-ati-gpu/8...+470&results=8
Or maybe
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/graphics-card/product/
Have you tried overclocking the CPU yet?