GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

Timothy Kim60 said:Look, x8 bandwidth isn't the actual killer here—SLI and Crossfire run fine on x8/x8. The real headache is that most of these motherboards with a second PCIe slot only offer x4 bandwidth anyway.

Take current Z170 boards, for example; maybe only about $400% actually support decent CF or SLI (meaning true x8/x8 modes).

It’s basically the same as before when you were running x8/x8 with a PCIe 3.0 setup. (Or it ends up looking like x32/x8, which is effectively the same as PCIe 2.0).

Everything's been tested and works fine for SLI/CF, except for the absolute top-tier cards.

Still seeing zero performance gains from x8 lanes, at least when it comes to gaming.

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic...omment-7901717
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/ar...neHeavenPro4_0

Even if you had an x8/x8 setup, it wouldn't fix the SLI bottleneck. It’s basic logic: if a single card isn't hitting its stride, adding a second one won't help—especially since so few titles actually scale perfectly with dual GPUs anyway.

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic...esultsawkward/

It's effectively no different than comparing PCIe 2.0 to PCIe 3.0.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/pci-e...formance-gain/

Hello there. I picked up a setup with an Intel Core i3-6100 and 8GB of RAM this past summer—now I'm looking to add a graphics card. My maximum budget is roughly 311 miles. I've been weighing the options between a GTX 1060 3GB or perhaps a GTX 1050 Ti—what are your thoughts? Also, will I run into any major bottlenecking issues? My long-term plan is to upgrade to an i5-6500 or maybe a 7500 in about six months to a year once the GPU is installed. Best regards.

I guess the processor should be just right for the GPU.

Wasn't there some story going around about those EVGA FTW Series cards being absolute garbage for some reason? I can't remember if I actually read that somewhere or if I'm just imagining things...

Hey there,

I was hoping I could get some thoughts on the EVGA MSI Gaming X GTX 1050 4GB.

Also, I'm curious if there’s actually a massive difference when you compare a 2GB model against this one, or if you go with a version that has a single fan instead of the dual setup.

If anyone has suggestions for something else, please let me know! It doesn't have to be an EVGA card—though I've used them before and honestly, they've always treated me well. I'm looking to spend roughly $333, just enough to run stuff like FIFA without everything turning into a slideshow.

My current specs:

- Phenom II x4 965 Black Edition
- ASRock 970 Pro3
- ATI Radeon HD 5830
- Kingston HyperX Fury DDR3 4x4 GB 1866 MHz
- WD Blue 1TB HDD
- Arctic Cooler Freezer 13

Thanks!

Right now, I’d personally lean toward one of these two options:

Unless you’re worried about the cooler performance—though honestly, the one listed above should be more than sufficient.

I've got this ASUS card myself and it’s solid—super quiet, too.

You can find it a bit cheaper right here:

The only real downside is there's no extra power connector. It's stuck at a 75W limit, which holds it back from reaching its full potential.

Models like the Dual Fan or the EVGA FTW have that extra power pin, so they can maintain much more stable clock speeds.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's a BIOS update out there for the Dual Fan (and the FTW) that unlocks the card's full capacity since some of it is locked by default.

http://overclocking.guide/amd-radeon...am-processors/

wiredotter14 said:I’ve got that ASUS card and it's great—super quiet, too.

You can find it here for a bit less:

The only downside is that it doesn't have an extra power connector, so it's kind of capped at 75W, even though it needs more to hit its full potential.

Models like the Dual Fan or the EVGA FTW versions actually include that extra power connector, which helps them maintain much more stable clock speeds.
Also, I think there might be a BIOS version out there for the Dual Fan (and the FTW) that unlocks the card's full capacity since some parts are locked by default from the factory.

http://overclocking.guide/amd-radeon...am-processors/

Look, my roommate actually picked up that exact card you have, and I was honestly surprised it didn't even have a single 6-pin connector. Is there actually a noticeable performance gap between these cards with the connector and this one?
And maybe that's why there isn't a custom BIOS for this specific model; if they tried unlocking all the ROPs and other components, it probably wouldn't stay stable without the extra power. I feel like I might've messed up a little by suggesting this model to him. 🤷

Adam Moore3 said:Look, my roommate actually took that card you have, and I was pretty shocked to see it doesn't even have a 6-pin connector. Is there any noticeable performance gap between the models with the connector and this one?
And maybe that's why there isn't a custom BIOS for this specific model—if they unlocked the extra ROPs and N/A, it probably wouldn't be stable without the extra power. I feel like I might've messed up recommending this model to him. 🤷

I haven't spent much time pushing the clocks and voltages in games, just a little bit.
Here's the bottom line: if you just slide the power limit all the way to the right in the NVIDIA Control Panel without even touching the clocks, the card holds a stable boost clock without breaking a sweat, even during stress tests. If it stays stable at those clocks, it should perform practically identical to any other card running at that same frequency.
Besides, you aren't going to get any significant overclocking out of a GTX 1050 beyond the advertised boost clock, so there's no real performance gain to be had.

As for unlocking extra ROPs and stuff, there isn't an available BIOS to even test it with, and honestly, I doubt there'd be enough juice to keep it running anyway.

The point is, if you aren't planning on overclocking, it's totally fine. In fact, it looks great—has a 0rpm fan and it's quiet as a mouse.

Hm, I didn't realize you could do that with the NVIDIA Control Panel, I'll definitely give that a shot.

But now I'm facing a whole new dilemma. A buddy of mine is looking to pick up a GPU soon too. He's running a Core i3-6100 and an EVGA unit with a 450W PSU. I was thinking about suggesting the GTX 1050 Ti, but I'm worried it'll be way too much of a bottleneck. Right now, you can find a GTX 1050 for $333, which is about $15 more than the 460, and considering all this



... I'm REALLY starting to think I messed up by getting the 460. This benchmark is from five months ago, so who knows if any major driver updates have changed things since then. I honestly don't know what to do 🤷

It’s a difference of about $50. Honestly, I think the GTX 1050 is worth picking up if you plan on overclocking it—drivers will favor AMD in the long run—otherwise, the 1050 might have a slight edge.

Also, you can find a 4GB version of the GTX 1050 for $333, though that doesn't really change much for the 1050. In my opinion, an unlocked GTX 1050 4GB is a solid choice, provided you grab a model that actually has a power connector.

The gap between drivers has narrowed slightly based on some recent re-testing, but even so, the GTX 1050 still edges out the GTX 1050 in average performance. In my opinion, the GTX 1050 sits in a bit of a "no man's land"—it’s not quite enough, yet not quite worth it. You’re much better off stretching your wallet a little further to get the GTX 1050 Ti. It offers superior speed and comes with 4GB of VRAM, making it a much more well-rounded product. Dealing with just 2GB on the GTX 1050 or the GTX 1050 4GB is tricky; most games won't show much difference on these lower-tier chips until you really start pushing them, at which point things get ugly (for instance, a 4GB card would crush a 2GB version in a title like Doom). Look, if you're strictly working with a tight budget, the GTX 1050 4GB is certainly the cheapest option listed, but the GTX 1050 is priced right alongside the 4GB model and isn't much cheaper than the 1050 Ti itself.

Timothy Kim60 said:The driver gap has closed up a bit since those re-tests, but even so, the GTX 1050 still beats the GTX 1050 in average performance. In my opinion, the GTX 1050 isn't quite worth it either; you’re better off stretching your wallet to get the GTX 1050 Ti. It's faster, comes with 4GB of VRAM, and feels like a much more complete product. Dealing with just 2GB on the GTX 1050 or the GTX 1050 4GB makes things tricky—most games won't show a massive difference on these lower-end chips until they start getting pushed hard (for example, a 4GB card crushes a 2GB card in Doom and stuff like that). If money is tight, the 2GB GTX 1050 4GB is at least the cheapest option listed, whereas the GTX 1050 sits right near the price of the 4GB version and isn't much cheaper than the 1050 Ti anyway.

For instance, my roommate actually picked up a 2GB GTX 1050 because his budget was super tight, and he runs The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 alongside an AMD processor without any issues.
He usually plays on a mix of High and Ultra settings with no problems. Sure, if you pick something that eats up a ton of VRAM, your FPS might tank, but you can fix that by just dropping textures from Ultra to High and so on.
So, I think the GTX 1050 might actually be the smarter move. Even if the performance gap narrowed, there's still at least a 10-15% difference in most games. And that's for only about $15 more.
I am just not sure about the Phenom, though... would it bottleneck something like a GTX 1050 Ti?
Looking at The Witcher 3, the CPU keeps the GPU at 100% while it stays around 60-70%. That’s with an overclock to 3.2 GHz from 2.7 GHz. I think a Phenom would handle a GTX 1050 Ti just fine, though I don't really want to drop another $25-$30 $100 if the usage is just going to sit at 90%.

Can anyone point me toward a decent GPU around the $333 mark for this build I put together about four months ago? I skipped the graphics card back then because I desperately needed a working PC right away, so I just went without... look, I'm not some hardcore gamer or anything, but I'd love to be able to actually run newer titles 🙂 like Sniper Elite or Battlefield...
1 x Intel Core i3-6100 (3.7GHz, 3MB,LGA1151) box
1 x Crucial DRAM 8GB DDR4 2133 MT/s (PC4-17000) CL15 SR
1 x Asrock LGA1151 H110M-DGS
1 x Seagate Barracuda 1TB, 64MB, 7200rpm
1 x LG GH24NSD1 24x
1 x GIGABYTE Midi ATX GZ-IF238R, ABS+Steel, USB 3.0,
1 x Fortron Hexa+ 400W, 80+

Greetings. I am currently looking to purchase a new graphics card from AMD and find myself torn between the GTX 1050 Ti and the 480.
I have a budget of $733 in cash available right now.
To be clear, this machine is used strictly for gaming; I am unsure which of these two options provides better performance, so I would appreciate your insights if possible.

AMD FX-6350 3.90GHz
ASUS GA-970A-DS3P
8GB RAM
Fortron Hyper 600W

Obviously, the 480 is better, but you're paying a premium for it. If you're just sticking to 1080p, the GTX 1050 Ti gets the job done fine enough.

wiredotter14 said:Obviously the 1070 is better, but it’s also more expensive. If you're just playing at 1080p, the GTX 1060 should be enough.

to play at 1080p

I was thinking about picking up this:
EVGA RX470 ROG Strix Radeon OC, STRIX-RX470-O8G-GAMING, 8GB GDDR5, 2x DVI, HDMI, HDMI

mistypilot9 said:playing at 1080p

I was thinking about grabbing this:
EVGA RX470 ROG Strix Radeon OC, STRIX-RX470-O8G-GAMING, 8GB GDDR5, 2x DVI, HDMI, HDMI

You won't really notice much difference, so getting a GTX 1060 is a solid move.

Like here:

http://www.bestbuy.com/catalog/computer...m_medium=click