GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

Anthony Jackson2 said:So there are two ways to go about this: either grab something more powerful like a 7870 now and then upgrade your CPU later, or just stick to the plan.

Exactly, provided it fits your budget. Honestly, if you're sticking with a 17" monitor, it probably only runs at 1280x1024, making an HD7770 (R7 250 x) perfectly adequate. However, since you mentioned upgrading your monitor soon (there are plenty of decent options starting from around $300), that GPU is already borderline insufficient for many 1080p titles—much like your dual-core setup, which I know you'll be upgrading anyway. On paper, the HD7870 is considered the baseline for demanding upcoming titles, and the real question is how long it will remain playable before it hits that "minimum spec" wall in practice. It’s better to invest now so you don't have to spend more money

@electicharbor30

WTF? You're actually mocking him just because he wants to rely on actual reviews and real-world experience instead of your nonsensical theories? 😵

If that isn't straight-up spamming, trolling, or just being obnoxious, I don't know what is. If we were talking about a 270X versus a GTX 960, you'd probably still be arguing that the first one is superior based on some imaginary math... No need to even reply; that idiot has already been thoroughly shut down, and you're clearly on the right track toward 🙂

BTW, Nvidia and AMD graphics cards use the exact same manufacturing process and come from the same factory (TSMC).

electricharbor30 said:Look, we're talking about cards released at basically the same time here... I agree Nvidia uses less power, has a better process, and is technically more advanced, but AMD gives you more raw muscle for fewer bucks. Sure, that 78XX beats both of those, but it’s older and probably sucks way more power too. Besides, the guy is using a 17-inch monitor—probably some low-res junk—and if he buys used, the thing could die on him tomorrow...

If you can't grasp what we're trying to say, there's really no hope for you.

It's totally fine if you don't think the testing conditions are realistic or relevant; feel free to go ahead and debunk them with your own tests. But people don't buy GPUs to Google specs—they buy them to play games.
Give us some actual data on how this hardware performs in real-world use.

See? Even these guys have some sort of quasi-evidence, while you've just got theories.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Look, I’ve been watching all those hardware benchmarks just like everyone else here... and I’ve been doing it for years now... it’s basically like how you have a Mercedes-Benz or an Opel out there... there's AMD and there's Nvidia... every brand has its own specific models, its own price points, its own little tech gimmicks, and all of them get reviewed on a bunch of different sites... so obviously, you’re gonna check out some reviews before you drop your cash. But you guys in here are insisting that a 200hp Mercedes-Benz is somehow better than a 300hp Opel, and you're trying to back that up by saying Michael Schumacher clocked a faster lap in it than Senna did in the other one. And honestly, the best part is, I never even disputed that; I was just saying that the 300hp Opel is technically the more powerful machine, and depending on the driver, the track, the weather, the time of day, the tire grip, and all that other stuff, it could potentially pull worse numbers than a BMW, but it's still the more powerful car... yet you guys just keep relentlessly mocking me, belittling my point, making fun of me, and shutting me down, even though I'm actually right...

you think

tests are run under identical conditions—same driver, same fuel, same track, same road conditions
Same CPU, RAM, motherboard, exact same game, and the exact same settings, then you measure the FPS (averages, lows, etc.)

So, tests actually measure RESULTS—real performance. You’re just sitting there measuring engine displacement or how big someone's damn exhaust pipe is

Undervolting AMD's Radeon R9 Fury for Better Efficiency

With this tweak, the card almost matches the efficiency of the GTX 980 in terms of performance per watt; in fact, it actually outperforms it in two out of nine games tested.

Quick question for you guys: I haven’t really messed around with desktop towers much before, but now I’m stuck working on one. It’s some brand-name, used HP 6000 Pro sff machine. I’m guessing SFF stands for Small Form Factor, which is honestly driving me crazy right now. Basically, how am I supposed to upgrade this thing with a GPU? I checked, and my card just won't fit; if I try to take off the metal bracket covering the PCIe slot, the casing itself is way too narrow for the card to slide in, even though the actual PCIe slot looks totally normal. I actually really dig the case otherwise, but this whole GPU situation is seriously getting on my nerves when I think about upgrading later. I checked Newegg and they don't seem to carry any SFF-specific cards at all, so I have no clue where I'd even find one?

You're unbelievable. On one hand, you're out here handing out advice like you're some kind of guru with years of experience under your belt, but on the other, this isn't even the first time you've tripped over your own feet like this... I don't even know what to call it 🤷

And if this whole post is just a joke because you were chatting with someone at 5 AM, you should've just stayed in the chat room...

Look, let's be clear: I'm not saying you should already be an expert on Small Form Factor builds. But it's wild to me that your first instinct wasn't to just Google "SFF" or "SFF graphics card." If you had, you would've seen that Small Form Factor basically means low profile when we're talking GPUs. It would have opened up a whole new world of models specifically designed for the SFF standard—so much so that Nvidia actually uses a specific "S" suffix on certain model numbers just for these cards...

With SFF cards, you aren't going to find any top-tier powerhouse models. Between the limited PCB space and the fact that you can't cram a dual-slot cooling setup into a tiny SFF case, you're pretty much stuck with mid-range options.

Also, SFF or low profile cards often ship with a standard backplate meant for a regular ATX case, but they include a low profile bracket in the box that you're supposed to swap out.

But here's the kicker: since SFF solutions are usually branded by big manufacturers, they go out of their way to make upgrades a total nightmare—whether it's software or hardware. They want you buying everything directly from them. They do this through weird chassis designs, intentionally adding useless metal tabs or plastic obstructions so aftermarket parts won't physically fit. Then there's the software side, using locks to prevent hardware or OS changes, BIOS locks, and even precisely calculated power supplies that'll choke the second you try to add a faster CPU or a better GPU.

So, even if you actually find an SFF card that fits the dimensions of your case, there's still no guarantee it'll actually work.

Don't even get me started on those power supplies that lack any real wattage or even basic PCI-E connectors. Plus, your standard mATX units don't fit the dimensions, and you can't even plug them into the motherboard if you tried.

I mean, I don't know about you guys, but I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole situation and honestly, it’s just... it's a lot. I guess I’m just rambling now, but there's something about the way things are moving lately that feels off, you know? Like, maybe I'm overthinking it, or maybe I'm just seeing what everyone else is too afraid to say out loud. It’s like we’re all just drifting along without really checking if the compass is even working anymore. I don't know, it's hard to put a finger on it, but it definitely feels like we're heading toward a cliff while everyone is busy arguing about the color of the car. Anyway, just my two cents, I suppose. kaže:
...

wiredotter14 said:...

Thanks for the heads up. I guess that means buying another PC is officially off the table then... honestly, I just don't have the energy to deal with that kind of bullshit.

electricharbor30 said:Thanks. Guess I'm not buying another PC then... Not in the mood for that kind of headache.

Pre-built brand name PCs are a massive pain for any GPU upgrade, even if you have a tower case.

wiredotter14 said:Brand-name prebuilts are an absolute nightmare if you ever plan on upgrading your GPU, even if they come in a standard tower case.

They’re essentially just laptops without the keyboard or the monitor attached. Honestly, wouldn't it be much more sensible to just grab a mini-ITX case and cram whatever hardware you actually want inside it?

electricharbor30 said:In my humble opinion, factory specifications matter far more than any "real-world" testing. It’s like choosing between a car with 300 horsepower and one with 400—how much performance the actual driver can squeeze out of either is irrelevant. If you look at GPuzoo, you see the raw, factory power, which is what truly matters. If someone really wants to see the reality of the situation, they can simply downclock an AMD card to match a competitor's Nvidia specs and see how things hold up. Most gaming benchmarks are pretty much useless...

Sure, a 400-horsepower car might end up being significantly slower than a 300-horsepower one depending on the build, but who cares? I have to ask, though—what on earth are you thinking when you suggest picking a graphics card based solely on factory settings? How, where, or when could anyone possibly draw a meaningful conclusion from that logic?

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario: I am an incredibly demanding user looking for some expert guidance on selecting a graphics setup. My goal is to run The Witcher 3 and Crysis 3 on Ultra settings without making a single compromise. I’m using a 3440 x 1440 monitor running at 60 Hz. Both games absolutely must maintain an average framerate of at least 60 Hz. But wait, there's more. Since native rendering often produces unsightly artifacts, I intend to push the resolution up to 4865 x 2036 using DSR or some equivalent technology.
So, there you have it: 4865x2036, 60 Hz, Ultra, Crysis 3, and The Witcher 3. Alright, you geniuses, let's hear it.

P.S. Feel free to future-proof your answers for a 75 Hz refresh rate while you're at it. 🍿 🤣

Bradley Lewis59 said:They’re basically just laptops without a keyboard or a monitor. Honestly, you'd be way better off grabbing some mini-ITX case and just cramming whatever the hell you want inside.

I mean, a car with 400 horsepower might actually end up being slower than one with 300, but whatever, that's not even the point. I'm honestly just scratching my head at your comment about picking out a GPU based on factory settings... like, how, what, where, or when does that actually help you conclude anything? It doesn't really make sense, I guess.

Let's say, for example, I'm an incredibly demanding user and I need some advice on picking a graphics setup. I want to run The Witcher 3 and Crysis 3 on Ultra settings without making any compromises whatsoever. My monitor is 3440 x 1440 at 60 Hz. Both games absolutely have to hit an average framerate of 60 Hz or higher. But wait, there's more. Since rendering at native resolution creates these ugly artifacts, I want to crank the resolution up to 4865 x 2036 using DSR or something similar.
So, there it is: 4865x2036, 60 Hz, Ultra, Crysis 3, The Witcher 3. Alright, go ahead, geniuses. Let's see what you got.

P.S. You guys can probably future-proof it to 75 Hz right away if you try hard enough. 🍿 🤣

I think you might be asking for a little too much here. Like, two 980 Ti cards in a SLI setup would be fine for 4K gaming, but even that probably wouldn't cut it for you. Maybe—and I know everyone's gonna come for me again—you could pull it off with a Quadro M6000, assuming those old specs from before the wiki edits were actually right. That's workstation-grade gear, but if those old numbers were accurate, it should theoretically have three times the GFLOPS of a 980 Ti and enough gigapixels per second to handle what you're looking for. Of course, I haven't seen any actual game benchmarks, so I can't say for sure, but based on raw factory power—assuming those stats weren't wrong—it might be exactly what you're after...

edit: actually, never mind, it won't work. I found the correct data and it isn't even close to those numbers that were on the wiki before...

Quadro and other professional CAD cards aren't even in the same league as gaming GPUs for one simple reason: they’re cranked up and optimized specifically for 2D workflows where they absolutely crush it, but when it comes to 3D—which is what basically every game relies on—they get totally smoked by actual gaming cards.

Professional CAD cards are great for 3D work, just not for gaming. The drivers act like a total bottleneck. They’re optimized specifically for 2D/3D CAD/CAM software—things like 3D rendering, simulations, and complex models (CATIA is a beast when it comes to 3D CAD). Basically, Quadro or FirePro cards and CAD/CAM/CAE programs are best friends and make really efficient use of those specific resources. But in a game? Any high-end gaming card will leave them in the dust. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Sure, they're both fruit, just different kinds. Not to mention the insane price gap. High-end workstation cards are priced through the roof (a FirePro W9100 can run $3,000+ while a GTX Titan X is around $1,000), plus there's the power draw and cooling requirements to consider. While raw hardware might favor workstation graphics sometimes, the drivers are tuned for a completely different job. I guess if someone actually made drivers optimized for gaming, the comparison might be a bit fairer. Sorry for going off-topic, I just wanted to add something to darkowl72's post.

👍 Good point, I misspoke there. It’s really the drivers—specifically how fast and stable they are—that make the real difference in performance...

It feels like ages ago when people used those "modern" BIOS hacks on graphics cards. You could basically trick cheap consumer cards into running Quadro or FirePro drivers because the hardware was practically identical. It let CAD users get near-pro performance without paying the massive premium. Sure, you weren't quite hitting the levels of a true workstation card since the pro versions always shipped with much faster RAM and sometimes even wider memory buses than the consumer stuff.

But that was a long time ago, probably even before GPGPU and CUDA were a thing. While Microsoft DirectX provided a widely accepted standard and introduced plenty of great features to the table, people have always complained about it being bloated, slow, and unreliable...

problematic: I’m pretty sure this is some weird graphics issue, so I’ll just dump it here instead of starting a whole new thread... So, I picked up Revenant on GOG, installed it, and when I tried to launch it, I got a prompt to install DirectPlay. I did that, and now the game runs perfectly fine on my end. But then I copied the whole folder over to my buddy who doesn't have internet access, and he keeps getting an app crash right at startup. I’ve already tried everything—installed the Microsoft DirectX runtime, .NET Framework, his GPU drivers (he’s rocking an Nvidia 8500 or maybe a 9500 GT), and all the VC redistributables, but nothing works; the game just crashes. I was reading up on this DirectPlay thing and apparently, they pulled it out of DirectX because of security vulnerabilities, and I noticed that under his Windows features, there isn't even a legacy section with the DirectPlay option, whereas I actually see it on my machine since I'm running Windows 10 64 Pro while he's stuck on Windows 7 Home 32 bit... what am I supposed to do? Other games from GOG work totally fine for him, except for Vampire: The Masquerade, which just dies after playing for a little bit... his DEP settings are on default, and I even tried copying Revenant to a thumb drive twice. The first time I installed it, the desktop icon didn't have that little elevation shield, but after the second copy, it did... even though the source files are identical. Either way, it just crashes on launch...

I have one more question for the group. A few of us are looking to play some games on some older hardware 🙂.

To be specific, we are working with a Dell 960. The specs are a Core 2 Duo E7400 and 4GB of DDR2. It is essentially an office PC, and the power supply is a Dell 255w, which follows standard ATX dimensions, though I am still looking into its limitations
.
I would like to run some older titles, perhaps something like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky, Far Cry 2, or similar games
.
What kind of graphics card should be purchased that wouldn't exceed the capacity of this power supply? My budget is roughly $167 maximum, so used components are fine
.

For context, my friend has owned this computer for quite a while; he bought it brand new, and it runs very smoothly and quickly, but it lacks a dedicated GPU
.
How should I proceed?

Perhaps a used 6770 or something similar might work. There is a PCIe slot available on the motherboard, there is sufficient physical space, and the clearance seems fine. Sorry for the trouble
.

I also neglected to mention that instead of a standard hard drive, there is a 120GB SanDisk SSD installed inside. I suppose I am unsure if that makes any significant difference regarding the power supply requirements.

neonpuma7 said:Just one more question, my crew and I are looking to run some games on some old hardware 🙂.

So, we're talking about a Dell 960. Specs are a Core 2 Duo E7400, 4GB DDR2—basically an office PC. The power supply is a Dell 255w, standard ATX size, and he's already looking into the power issues.

He wants to play some older titles, maybe something like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky, Far Cry 2, and stuff like that.

What kind of GPU should he grab that won't blow the power supply? Budget is $167 max, and used gear is fine.

By the way, my buddy has had this rig forever; bought it brand new and it still runs like a charm—fast and smooth—but it lacks a dedicated GPU, obviously.

Any ideas?

Maybe a used 6770 or something? There's a PCIe slot on the motherboard, plenty of room, standard height, everything fits. Sorry to be a pain.

With that little wattage, I think it’s risky to slap any real graphics card in there. If it were even 250W, it might be okay, but the problem is it's not even hitting that. Maybe try an R7 240/250 DDR5...