GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

This is a textbook case of Asus being overpriced just because the cooler isn't actually any better. The only real perk is that longer warranty they offer here in the States. But wait, where does it even specify the warranty? I don't see it listed. Is everything just following the standard two-year rule? If that's the case, you might as well just grab one of those first two options that fits your aesthetic better.

Right now, the Inno3D iChill is the absolute best buy in our market, especially since it comes with a 3-year warranty, though I noticed it's actually priced higher than the Asus model. If brands like Asus, MSI, or Gigabyte are offering 3-year warranties in your area, then maybe this one is worth a look. Otherwise, if you're just running Call of Duty, there's really no point in upgrading; you'd only bother doing that for much more demanding titles.

Most brands here usually stick to a standard two-year warranty, though Zotac is actually pretty cool about offering up to five years if you take the time to register the card. But honestly, since Call of Duty is basically the only game I’m playing on my PC right now—everything else stays on my PlayStation 4—I think you're right that there isn't much point in upgrading just yet. It feels like a better move to save that cash and put it toward a PlayStation VR instead.
Thanks so much for the advice.

So, you're saying you'll be hovering somewhere between 70 and 90 fps. Would you even notice the difference compared to a 144Hz setup? Honestly, maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't...

Here is what an "average gamer" looks like on a 60Hz versus a 120Hz monitor...

Though, if you're trying to run Mafia III, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, or some other modern, resource-heavy piece of junk, that HD 7970 is going to start giving you trouble (at least until you dial back the settings). In that case, having that extra horsepower would definitely come in handy.

Timothy Kim60 said:How is that possible when there are games out there where even a 1070 can't hit an average of 60 FPS, let alone a minimum? And he's rocking a 144Hz monitor too...

That's because the guy is only talking about Call of Duty.

...that rig is basically being used to play Call of Duty 90% of the time....

That was the point of my comment. Chasing +120 FPS in Call of Duty only matters if you're playing multiplayer "seriously," but then a "serious" player isn't going to touch Ultra settings anyway. No matter what card they have, they'll always be hunting for the highest possible FPS on Low settings...😉

It’s actually quite helpful to see exactly how much that Athlon 860K is going to bottleneck a 1050Ti compared to an i5 6600K.

We also need to keep in mind that the Athlon 860K is running at stock clock speeds. You could see some pretty significant gains if you decided to overclock it 🙂

I gotta admit, I was expecting a way bigger difference than this

To whom it may concern;

I am planning to head out and purchase a new graphics card in the coming days;

my current setup consists of the following:

Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme 4
CPU: Intel Core i7-3770K Processor
GPU: Gigabyte R9 280 OC 3 GB
PSU: Cooler Master Silent Pro Gold 1000W
RAM: 16 GB (1600 MHz)
SSD: Samsung SSD 840
HDD: WD Black 1500 GB
HDD: WD Green 500 GB
Case: Cooler Master HAF 912

I can only hope that my CPU will not act as a bottleneck for the new GPU.
My intention is to pick up either a GTX 1060 6GB or a Radeon RX 480 8GB (the GTX features a faster processor, lower power consumption, and superior performance in DirectX 11 titles, whereas the Radeon RX 480 is more budget-friendly, offers an additional 2GB of VRAM, supports CrossFire unlike its competitor, and provides better support for modern DirectX 12 titles such as Doom via Vulkan). 🤔

It is truly difficult to fathom why Nvidia would neglect SLI support and allow their hardware to struggle so significantly in DirectX 12 environments. 🤦

Now, having weighed all the advantages and disadvantages, a colleague of mine insists that the Radeon RX 480 8GB is actually the superior choice? 🤔

Here is a link demonstrating how the Radeon RX 480 8GB outperforms the GTX 1060 6GB with a 1000-point lead in 3DMark benchmarks:

http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu

One must ask oneself: just how objective can this testing really be?

https://www.newegg.com

Or maybe this:

https://www.newegg.com

It’s pretty hard to make a wrong call here... you're basically looking at a top-tier Radeon RX 480 versus a mid-range GTX 1060, so I guess there won't be $67 much of a difference. Personally, I’d probably lean toward the Radeon RX 480. Since you mentioned you're over in Chicago, I don't know the exact local prices, but 😬
maybe check those first.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1771?vs=1748

Take a look at actual game benchmarks rather than just synthetic stuff like Futuremark... personally, I’d probably lean toward the 1060. Honestly, Nvidia has just been my go-to lately—it's hard to argue with them when most cards perform pretty similarly anyway, especially if you're just sticking to 1080p resolution. 🙂

Larry Ortiz5 said:http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1771?vs=1748

One ought to examine actual game benchmarks rather than relying on synthetic software suites like Futuremark. If I were making this decision myself, I would opt for the 1060; over the last few years, I have developed a distinct preference for Nvidia, especially considering that performance levels are practically identical—particularly when one is targeting 1080p resolution. 🙂

However, Nvidia lacks SLI mode support—which the Radeon RX 480 8GB does possess—and the latter offers an additional 2 GB of VRAM.

While I might also lean toward Nvidia under different circumstances, it is worth noting that newer titles built on the DirectX 12 platform perform significantly better on the Radeon RX 480 8GB.

It appears Nvidia has made a serious miscalculation here, as their hardware seems to be lagging behind AMD when it comes to leveraging new DirectX 12 technology. 🤦

Honestly, just skip it $500—go for the 1070 instead, which absolutely crushes everything in its path.. 😁 Or, if you're really hung up on having 8GB of VRAM, just grab the Radeon RX 480. If you're running a standard 1080p monitor, 6GB is already plenty, let alone 8GB... But hey, if you’re actually looking at the long game—like, thinking about how things will run a few years down the road or if you're focused on future-proofing for titles like Call of Duty—then the Radeon RX 480 is probably your best bet and that's that..

Exactly what the title says: I need to know the absolute limit for a low-profile graphics card given a 240W power supply.
I'm working with a branded HP machine (an HP Compaq SFF model) with these specs:
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 3.00 GHz, E8400 2CORES
RAM: 4GB DDR3
HDD: 250 GB
GPU: Integrated Intel GMA 4500 64MB
Optical Drive: DVD-RW
I/O: 10x USB 2.0; DisplayPort; VGA; LAN; 2x 3.5mm audio jacks; RS232
PSU: 240W

Is there any realistic way to slap a GPU in here on 240W that can actually handle games from up through 2010?

So, are you looking for a graphics card that doesn't need its own dedicated power connector—basically just drawing all its juice straight from the PCIe slot? Well, it really comes down to how much cash you're looking to drop. Are you planning on picking something up from a big retailer like Best Buy, or are you thinking more along the lines of hunting for a deal on eBay or Craigslist?

Larry Ortiz5 said:So, you're looking for a graphics card that doesn't need an extra power connector—just draws everything straight from the PCIe slot. Look, how much cash are we actually talking about here? And do you plan on buying this from a proper retailer like Best Buy or Newegg, or are you trying to hunt for a deal on Craigslist?

Pa $167 It doesn't matter if it’s used or brand new. The only thing that matters is whether it can actually run on that 240W power supply. That's the bottom line.

Timothy Kim60 said:https://www.newegg.com

It pulls way too much power. The specs clearly state it recommends a 400W PSU. I need something that runs on 240W.

It draws power directly from the PCI-E slot, and your CPU isn't exactly a massive power hog. As long as your PSU can deliver more than 150W on the +12V rail, you should be golden...

When it comes to power supplies, official manufacturer specs for GPUs are pretty much irrelevant. You can find two different vendors using the exact same chip—say, an R9 290—where one card is rated at 500W and the other at 750W, so that doesn't tell you much. Plus, not all power supplies are created equal; even if they claim the exact same wattage, the actual quality difference can be night and day.

Timothy Kim60 said:It pulls its power from the PCIe slot; your CPU isn't some massive power hog. As long as that PSU delivers over 150W on the +12V rail, you're golden...

Official GPU manufacturer pages are useless when you're talking about power supplies. You can find one vendor claiming 500W for the exact same chip (like an R9 290) while another claims 750W. It's a mess. Besides, not all PSUs are created equal even if they list the same wattage—the difference between a cheap unit and a high-end one is night and day.

Look, I know plenty about how much quality varies between different PSU brands. But that card is way overpriced. Give me something closer to $167.

To $167 honestly, you're just looking at a total waste of money with a terrible price-to-performance ratio here.

https://www.newegg.com/xfx-amd-radeon...240a-zlh4.aspx

Timothy Kim60 said:Do $167 Let’s be real: you can end up with nothing but a total piece of junk if the price-to-performance ratio on a GPU is garbage.

Check this out: XFX AMD Radeon RX 480. It’s available right now over at Newegg.

I don't have any intention of running the latest AAA titles anyway. That integrated graphics setup really bugs me, and besides, this rig is mostly just for Office, music, and browsing the web.

What's your take on this one? Check out this graphics card deal over at Newegg: https://www.newegg.com
Compared to an R7 240? It isn't even a contest.