GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

You can still snag an Rx 580 for maybe 500 bucks--$200.

wiredotter14 said:Why would anyone even look at a GTX 1650 when you can grab something much better for around $900? It just doesn't make sense—honestly, I don't get the logic behind it.$333 I’m looking at an RX 580 8GB—or even grabbing a 4GB model for even less. It’s a much better play than that GTX 1650. Honestly, that card was a terrible value when it first dropped for $150, and seeing people try to sell them used for the same price now is just a total disaster.

The GTX 1650 only works if you're running some random office PC with a power supply that doesn't even have a PCIe connector—not that anyone actually builds stuff like that anymore.

Oh, it’s just great—selling your old junk on Craigslist for what it cost when it was brand new. Truly inspired stuff.

velvetlynx3 said:Oh yeah, because nothing beats browsing Craigslist for old junk being sold at full retail price... truly a dream scenario...

You want me to pull up my receipt and show you what I actually shelled out for an RTX 3070 back in the day?

velvetlynx3 said:Oh yeah, because selling old junk on Craigslist for what it cost when it was brand new is just a brilliant idea... absolutely perfect...

First off, they aren't junk; they’re still great cards for lower resolutions today, and market demand dictates the price.

Alexander Moore67 said:First off, they aren't garbage—they're actually great cards for lower resolutions today, and market demand sets the price.

Look, you’re talking about sub-1080p on low settings or maybe some really light indie titles. Anything AAA or even just modern—it's a total slideshow. And don't get me started on the CPU requirements—people watching YouTube claiming these are fine for 1080p are usually testing them with a top-tier i9-13900K...

velvetlynx3 said:It’ll probably struggle under 1080p on low settings—maybe some really light indie stuff. Anything modern or AAA is just going to be a slideshow. Plus, you need a decent CPU too; those YouTube videos showing great 1080p performance are usually people testing with a 13900K...

He gives a pretty fair take on the actual hardware regardless of the price tag. Just keep in mind he used a Ryzen 9 5950 x, and since this 6400 is a low profile/low power card, expect lower FPS in the real world:

tiny RDNA2, The Best LP Single Slot GPU: AMD Radeon RX 6400 Review - Hardware Unboxed

Spending $210 on a 6500 XT—which is barely 5% faster than an RX580 you can snag for $80 on Craigslist—and then acting like the 580 is garbage? Come on.

Ronald Bishop58 said:You can still snag an RX580 for around $50.$200.

Most of those are the 4GB versions, which still perform convincingly better than a GTX 1650. They're perfectly fine for 1080p. The 8GB models run a bit pricier.

velvetlynx3 said:Oh, great. It’s just wonderful seeing people dump their old junk on Craigslist at full retail prices like they're brand new. Absolutely perfect.

Ronald Bishop58 said:You want me to show you the receipt for what I paid for an RTX 3070 two years ago?

Alexander Moore67 said:Look, first off, they aren't garbage. Even today, they're solid cards for lower resolutions. The price? That's just whatever the market decides it is.

It's funny how differently everyone interpreted what velvetlynx3 meant by "old crap."
🤣🍿🎉🍿

The RX580 is ancient, sure, but it still absolutely crushes every other card mentioned in that price range when you look at actual value.

The GTX 1650 is old junk. It’s fine for an OEM PC if you can snag one for like $5.$200

Regarding that RTX 3070... honestly, nobody on the forums or at the detective agency really cares how much Ronald Bishop58 paid for his 3070 years ago.

Look, regarding the RX6500—it runs on PCIe x4. If you aren't running a motherboard and CPU combo that actually supports PCIe 4.0, you're stuck with PCIe 3.0 x4. That basically turns it into PCIe 2.0 x8... which throttles the card so hard its performance can end up lower than an RX580.

The odds are that anyone buying a card like that doesn't even have PCIe 4.0, making it a pretty terrible choice.

The RX6400 would be a decent card if you could snag it for around $400.$167 New one. Usually just here to lurk.

wiredotter14 said:Those are usually the 4GB versions, which still clearly outperform the GTX1650. They're perfectly fine for 1080p. The 8GB models run a bit more expensive.

It's funny how differently everyone interpreted what velvetlynx3 meant by "old crap."
🤣🍿🎉🍿

The RX580 might be old, but it still 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 PC if you can snag one for $500-$200

As for the RTX 3070... people on this forum or browsing Craigslist don't really care how much Ronald Bishop58 paid for his 3070 years ago.

Regarding the RX6500, that card uses PCIe x4. So, if someone doesn't have a motherboard and CPU that both support PCIe 4.0, the card gets throttled down to PCIe 3.0 x4. That's basically like running on PCIe 2.0 x8... which limits it so much that the performance can actually drop below an RX580.

There's a high chance a buyer picking up that card won't have PCIe 4.0, making it a pretty terrible choice.

An RX6400 would be a decent pick for around $400 new; otherwise, it's a total joke.$167

This guy just brought some order to a complete clusterfuck of misinformation. 🙂

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

Thanks for the insight, genius!
Just a quick reminder that you still haven't replied to my DM about whether running 2x 16+8 GB RAM per channel actually works. 😉

wiredotter14 said:Regarding the RX6500—that card runs on PCIe x4. So, if you don't have a motherboard and CPU combo that supports PCIe 4.0, you're stuck with PCIe 3.0 x4, which basically acts like PCIe 2.0 x8... it chokes the card so much that performance can actually end up lower than an RX580.

There's a high chance someone buying this card doesn't even have PCIe 4.0, making it a pretty terrible choice.

An RX6400 would be fine if it was around $400--$167 brand new, otherwise it's just junk.

I think Steve laid it out perfectly in that video—explained the whole PCIe 3/4 situation and backed it up with graphs, you just have to actually pay attention.

Not to mention his review of the GTX 1650...

And yeah, these are basically "just enough to get a picture on the screen" cards for $167. I run into this kind of thing constantly in the corporate world. Heh, I actually had to install a bunch of GT 730s recently because the chosen CPU didn't have an iGPU...

velvetlynx3 said:I think Steve hit the nail on the head in that video. He laid out the whole PCIe 3/4 situation perfectly and backed it up with graphs—you just have to actually pay attention.

Not to mention his review of the 1650 was... something else.

And yeah, those cards are basically "just enough to get a signal" for $167. I run into this all the time in the corporate world. Heh, I recently had to slap a bunch of GT 730s into machines because the chosen CPU didn't have an iGPU...

Yeah... honestly, cards in the RX6400 tier shouldn't really be used. They’re marginally better than a decent integrated chip, but hey, if you just need a display, they're fine. They're miles ahead of those Nvidia GT7xx cards, which are absolute garbage and should have been retired years ago.

The RX6400 should probably cost next to nothing and be aimed at budget builds using slightly beefier CPUs that just need video output with some modern features—like HEVC hardware decoding (not revolutionary, but still a step up from prehistoric tech).

Take a Ryzen 5950 x and an RX6400 for a build that's primarily CPU-heavy...

Otherwise, treating the RX6400 or RX6500 as "gaming" cards is almost pointless. You'd be better off pairing something like a 12100F with one of those.

Processors like the i3 10100 f and a ton of older Ryzen chips paired with B350/450 boards don't support PCIe 4.0, so that setup is a total disaster...

The Nvidia RTX3050 is a bad value for the money, but at least it—along with the RX6600(XT)—has PCIe x8, which is acceptable (meaning minimal bottlenecking on PCIe 3.0).

I honestly can't wrap my head around putting the GT 730 and the GTX 1650 in the same conversation!
The 1650 is literally 855% stronger on PassMark.

Alexander Moore67 said:I honestly don't get how you can even put the GT 730 and the GTX 1650 in the same breath!
The 1650 is basically 855% stronger on PassMark.

Look, they both fall under the same "not meant for modern gaming" umbrella. Bringing up the 730 is just a reminder of how long companies churn out these cards—clearly just to provide a basic display signal. Nobody should be buying them or recommending them for gaming—unless you're playing some ancient retro titles from decades ago.

Look, you can definitely run eSports titles at 1080p on a GTX 1650. But honestly? It’s not worth the money anymore since they're selling new cards now. The price needs to drop significantly if it's going to make sense—either for gaming or just as a basic display output card.

I honestly think the GTX 1650 is pretty much the most powerful card you can grab right now that doesn't require an extra power connector. That’s actually a huge deal for people who picked up those office desktops that don't have any extra power leads available (yeah, I'm looking at you, Dell 😠)

velvetlynx3 said:They both fall into that same "not meant for gaming anymore" category. Bringing up the GT 730 is just a reminder of how long they keep making those cards just to get a display on the screen, obviously. Nobody should be buying them or recommending them for gaming, unless you're playing some really old retro titles.

If Cyberpunk 2077 counts as easy to run and retro, then sure, but that depends on whether someone is actually happy getting 40-45 fps on 1080p with low settings!

Alexander Moore67 said:If you think Cyberpunk 2077 is easy to run or some retro relic, fine—but whether 40-45 FPS on low settings at 1080p is actually "playable" is another story entirely.

Sure, if you like suffering. Until recently, I was running a 1080 FE paired with a 6700K—even then, hitting 60 FPS at 1080p with FSR set to high/medium was a struggle, mostly due to massive frame drops during driving sequences. If that setup barely hit the minimum for a decent experience, I don't even want to imagine how much of a disaster it looks on a slower GTX 1650.

I spotted a Radeon 7900 XT for $900 on Amazon—thinking about grabbing it for some solid 1440p gaming and just having that peace of mind for the next few years. Is this actually a good move, or should I just stop being an idiot and look at something else?

Brian Grant9 said:Is getting a Radeon 7900 XT for $850 on Amazon worth it for 1440p gaming and future-proofing, or should I look elsewhere?

If you're looking at prices in the US, this is a solid deal. It'll handle 1440p just fine, provided you aren't obsessed with Raytracing—which isn't exactly top-tier on the 7900 XT anyway.

https://www.amazon.com/placeholder-link

The 7900 XT at $850 is a decent card, sure, but let's not pretend it's some incredible steal.