GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

IMO=my two cents

If you've got the cash, enough juice to power a small city, and honestly think a "standard" GPU is just overkill, then go for it, man...

fadedorca66 said:IMO = In My Opinion = basically just what I think, duh...

If you've got the cash, the power supply to back it up, and you're worried some "standard" GPU is gonna be total overkill, then go for it, man... just pull the trigger...

Kinda going off on a tangent here, but it looks like at least 60% of the folks on this board (if not more, and honestly probably closer to 😁 ) just buy a high-end card so they don't have to worry about an upgrade for a long time. Just because something feels like overkill today doesn't mean it won't be the sweet spot tomorrow... maybe I'm wrong though 🤷 .

And regarding the power draw, the guy who suggested I grab the Radeon 7850 instead of the 7870 actually did me a huge solid since I wasn't really paying much attention to the wattage requirements 😬 🙂

I don't know, I guess my take is that any GPU at a decent price (I’d say up to $667, though $500 is the sweet spot for a best buy) can handle games for at least the next two years—maybe longer—at pretty solid settings and resolution. Tech isn't advancing so fast anymore that you buy a card today and it's junk tomorrow. Maybe some unoptimized garbage game will launch and make everything struggle, but then you just tweak the settings. Besides, I don't really see the point in overkill graphics when you're just using a single monitor anyway.

Or if they're struggling with low FPS 🤣

Larry Ortiz5 said:Or if they're struggling with low FPS 🤣

Am I really the only one ☕

Game development isn't actually moving as fast as you might think, mostly because hardware-limited consoles act as a bottleneck since about 99% of titles are developed primarily for them. It’s all about the bottom line—for most multiplatform releases, over 90% of the sales happen on consoles. When it comes to the PC port, no matter how much effort they put in (and let's face it, PC versions are always more demanding, but they also look better and hit higher FPS), they're still tethered to those console specs. We're currently in a generational shift, so expect requirements to skyrocket for a year or two, followed by a long period of stagnation, just like we saw on PC between Crysis and Battlefield 3 back in the day. Looking at history, the PS2 era lasted six years and the PS3 lasted seven.

Brandon Carter17 said:Am I really the only one who ☕

Honestly, I'm right there with you—having a solid frame rate is everything.😁

Scott Hayes96 said:I just want max performance for gaming—I don't care if it's single or dual GPU, I just want everything this thing can throw at me. Power consumption isn't my problem, and I'm only running one monitor anyway.

One monitor? You're rocking a GeForce GTX 780 right now. If you're eyeing a Radeon R9 card, you're going to have to sit tight until some reliable benchmarks actually drop—the card hasn't even hit the shelves yet, so nobody truly knows what kind of performance we're looking at.

So, I just grabbed some R7 and R9 cards from AMD. It looks like the Radeon R9 270X actually outpaces the 7870, and it’s even cheaper too?

Yeah, it’s pretty much on par with the HD 7950, though you can find some HD 7870s out there around $467.

It’s similar to how the Radeon R9 280X is slightly more powerful than the HD 7970, but maybe 300-$133 cheaper 😉

The reviews out there are a bit all over the place. Some claim the Radeon R9 270X is right up there with the GeForce GTX 760 and the HD 7950—essentially performing at the same level—while others show it falling noticeably short in the exact same titles. 🤷 At the end of the day, we're looking at a rebranded 7870; everything we've seen so far is just a repackaged version with a slight overclock.

So, if the 270X is effectively a Tahiti-based 7870, then the Radeon R9 280X is an absolute steal for the price. That’s the best news I've heard all day!

It feels like they either can't figure out how to manufacture better cards anymore—or maybe they just don't know how—so now they’re just taking existing graphics, giving them a tiny little tweak, slapping a new name on them, and calling it a day.

There’s really nothing controversial about it. It was the exact same situation with the NVIDIA 7 series; for the user, the key factor is simply seeing a "new" GPU drop into a lower price bracket—much like how the Radeon R9 280X functioned. This 290X will be the first one to actually introduce something genuinely fresh regarding the chip architecture itself.

Regarding my decision on graphics cards, I have finally abandoned the idea of CrossFire and opted instead for a true powerhouse: the Gainward GeForce GTX 770, featuring 2GB of DDR5 memory along with HDMI, Dual DVI, and DisplayPort connectivity!

http://www.amazon.com/?tag=graphics-card-example-21

When one selects a GPU, should they not aim for at least $833 a level of performance that ensures peace of mind for a full year? Otherwise, one is simply stuck in a repetitive cycle of purchasing hardware every twelve months!

Brian Campbell36 said:When you buy a GPU, you should get at least $833 just to have some peace of mind for maybe 12 months—then you're right back into the cycle of hunting for a new card!

At least $833???
Not quite—unless you're using it exclusively for gaming and cranking everything up to ultra settings.
For $1300—$500 you can grab a very solid card now that handles serious workstation tasks (photo/video editing and plenty of other stuff) while still running most modern games at decent settings during downtime. Then, after two or three years, you can actually consider upgrading.

Yeah... say you grab a Radeon R9 270X, $500, it's basically on par with an HD 7950. I guess you'd be pretty much set for a few years without any real worries.

crimsonstag84 said:Yeah... say you grab a Radeon R9 270X, $500, it performs about like an HD 7950. You'll be fine for a few years with that.

For sure.

At this rate, you might as well just buy a 1000W power supply too. ☕

Mark Walker97 said:Minimum $833???
Not really, unless you're strictly using it for gaming and pushing everything to ultra settings.
For $1,300—$500 you can pick up a very capable graphics card today that handles serious workloads like video and photo editing, plus a whole bunch of other tasks. On top of that, when it's time to unwind, it'll run plenty of modern titles on high settings. Then, after two or three years, you can always look into an upgrade.

Gill01 is just trolling 😁

What GPU would you recommend for a build with an i7 if I'm handling photo and video editing $467?

Bryan White10 said:What kind of GPU would you recommend paired with an $467 for heavy photo and video editing workloads?

I’d generally suggest going with NVIDIA.
For example, check this out:

There was some discussion earlier on the forum suggesting that older architectures might actually perform better for those specific types of tasks.