Best PERFORMANCE-BANG-4-BUCK video card?

[BrightCandle]

I am kind of disappointed with the level of performance the high end cards provide. I always expected from reviews I would have no issues hitting 60Hz with like 8x AA. In reality there are many sections of games where I need to turn then settings down to get decent game play. A man with 2x gtx 680 and my cpu should not be playing Planetside 2 at a hybrid of high and low settings. I should not be having to turn details down in mechwarrior online and BF3 should be possible in surround. I rarely even use msaa, its mostly smaa or fxaa because otherwise the frame rate is too low. The reality doesn't match much of the benchmarks done if you want a game to be playable throughout.

So I agree I think the sweet spot for getting most of the eye candy on for the very best PC gaming experience is in the high end cards as the game producers are finally kicking out games that hammer today's machines. You may want to spend less, but I would say do so if you need to spend less. If you don't genuinely have the cash then buying lower will get you playing with lower settings but its far from ideal as I am of the opinion 2x 680s isn't enough in the top end games.

 

[tweakboy]

WIthout a doubt.

GTX 660 Ti 2GB You can grab it for UNDER 200 dollars.

It will give you amazing performance. gl

 

[raghu78]

7950 with 2 free games and unlocked voltage for $280 after rebate is the best value hands down. That's why I bought it.

well said and good choice :thumbsup:

 

[jacktesterson]

I don't want to seem biased (look at my sig), but why do people seem to forget that the 7970 and Ghz Ed. can ALSO overclock to hit even higher speeds than their stock clocks for performance that a 7950 will probably never reach due to missing Stream processors?

It's one thing to say that the 7950 will give you the best performance for your dollar, it's another to imply that a 7950 OC will beat a 7970/Ghz Edition because of course, those can be overclocked as well.

He never said it would beat a OC'd 7970. He said it would overclock to beat a 7970. (meaning stock) which is true.

Also, it's been pretty much a given for years that buying top end cards are not "best bang for your buck"

Seems simple to me.

I think the 7850 is probably the best bang for buck card when found around $150-170. It can match/beat the performance of last gen's $400 cards when overclocked.

 

[Gryz]

Gryz I disagree.
The GTX 660 (non Ti) is the sweet spot IMHO for the 200 dollar segment. 7850/70 is for AMD.
The GTX 650Ti would be another at 150 spot.

The OP's question is too vague.
So we all have different interpretations of that question.
For me, the question was: what is the best bang4buck for an enthusiastic gamer. Because most people here seem enthusiasts. And imho, those kinda of gamers should not go below 7850/660ti. I myself would always spend more than $200 for a videocard.

I've played with a gtx260 for almost 4 years (until I bought a gtx680 on release day). But in hind-sight, I should have replaced my gtx260 much earlier.

If you literally want best bang4buck, you probably end up with a very cheap GPU. Or even cheaper, the integrated GPU on your CPU. Again, the question is too vague.

Also, I am not in the US. Prices in different countries are different. Even relative pricing ! (I know it's weird, but it happens). And the differences change all the time. The OP's question is a moving target.

 

[Will Robinson]

Time to update your sig with that kick ass 7950 Oil.:thumbsup:

 

[Keysplayr]

The OP's question is too vague.
So we all have different interpretations of that question.

True. I took it as a mainstream gamer question. Could easily be anything though.

 

[Rhezuss]

That is only my opinion on what i'd get depending on my budget. Use it at your own risk...

0$ = Intel HD4000 / AMD HD7xxxD integrated graphics
50$-100$ = HD 7750 2gb / GT 640 2gb
101$-200$ = HD7850 2gb / GTX 650 Ti 2gb
201$-299$ = HD 7870 GHz 2gb / GTX 660 Ti 2gb)
+/- 300$ = Clearly the HD7950 3gb (3gb, 384-bit and as a bonus you get 2 awesome games and OC room to reach HD7970 GHz ed./GTX680 performances)

 

[Midwayman]

The new 7870 LE (aka myst and XT) cards are probably the biggest bang for the buck for 1080p gaming. Mine is doing crysis 3 at VHQ very well. If you want to push 1440p you probably want to step up to at least a 7950 range card.

 

[Shephard]

7870 myst I just got it.

 

[BoFox]

The OP's question is too vague.
So we all have different interpretations of that question.
For me, the question was: what is the best bang4buck for an enthusiastic gamer. Because most people here seem enthusiasts. And imho, those kinda of gamers should not go below 7850/660ti. I myself would always spend more than $200 for a videocard.

And the differences change all the time. The OP's question is a moving target.

Fine, let's just interpret the question.. LITERALLY!

As to what gives the most performance for the $$. TPU has a chart for this, and so does TR too (they like to do it with the 99% frametimes). But they do not include every video card - especially 40nm cards, or the latest ASP's (average selling prices). The OP has different categories - one for the newer 28nm cards, one for all cards that can be found in retail, and ULTIMATE one for all cards out there (including Ebay and FS/T forums).


Personally, the best performance bang-4-buck that I ever had was an X800 for $35 off Ebay. Many of these were selling on Ebay for roughly that price, and I just snatched one up using pocket change.

That was less than 2 years after X800 Pro was selling for over $300. More like 1.5 years later. I need to look up exactly when, but it really was before I bought my X1900XTX at launch day (which was 1.5 years after the X800XT series came out).

The X800 was barely any slower than X800 Pro, having the same 12-pipelines, etc. It was just flat-out ridiculously good for only $35. True, it had only 128MB, but most games still played pretty good, like the 9800Pro 128MB that I had before it. I could see considerable improvements over the 9800 Pro that I got for almost 10 times that price, not much earlier.

It's just that most people never noticed the vanilla X800 at all (it was launched a few months after X800XT/Pro, I think). Most people not noticing it must have been the reason for ultra-low reselling prices on Ebay. At the same time, the 6600GT was still going for $150-ish.

Ahh, nostalgia!

EDIT - We need RussianSensation here - he would've loved this thread!

 

[jkauff]

Gryz I disagree.
The GTX 660 (non Ti) is the sweet spot IMHO for the 200 dollar segment.

The OP didn't mention if he was a gamer or not. I'm not, but I am into high-quality video. I bought a GTX 660 (Asus) for just that reason. It's quiet, cool, overclocks nicely, and runs my video renderer at the highest settings (including frame interpolation to 60fps). I bought it because it was highly recommended over at the doom9 forum, and I couldn't be happier. The improvement over my HD 4000 is very noticeable.

I only mention this because when I was mulling over my purchase, the folks in this forum told me a discrete GPU was a waste of money for my uses. It's not.

 

[Keysplayr]

The OP didn't mention if he was a gamer or not. I'm not, but I am into high-quality video. I bought a GTX 660 (Asus) for just that reason. It's quiet, cool, overclocks nicely, and runs my video renderer at the highest settings (including frame interpolation to 60fps). I bought it because it was highly recommended over at the doom9 forum, and I couldn't be happier. The improvement over my HD 4000 is very noticeable.

I only mention this because when I was mulling over my purchase, the folks in this forum told me a discrete GPU was a waste of money for my uses. It's not.

Maybe you can elaborate a little more on the software you use. Why a GTX 650 or 650 Ti wouldn't have been enough for you. And most importantly and what I'm mo as t curious about is why you would need too overclock for video rendering and if you notice improvements when you do.

 

[Stuka87]

The OP didn't mention if he was a gamer or not. I'm not, but I am into high-quality video. I bought a GTX 660 (Asus) for just that reason. It's quiet, cool, overclocks nicely, and runs my video renderer at the highest settings (including frame interpolation to 60fps). I bought it because it was highly recommended over at the doom9 forum, and I couldn't be happier. The improvement over my HD 4000 is very noticeable.

I only mention this because when I was mulling over my purchase, the folks in this forum told me a discrete GPU was a waste of money for my uses. It's not.

You over clocked your GPU so that you can watch video? That made me chuckle. For your uses you would have been far better off with a lower end card like an HD7750. Runs much cooler and quieter than a 660, and will play video all day long.

 

[NuBpC]

I like the 7950..

 

[jkauff]

Maybe you can elaborate a little more on the software you use. Why a GTX 650 or 650 Ti wouldn't have been enough for you. And most importantly and what I'm mo as t curious about is why you would need too overclock for video rendering and if you notice improvements when you do.

My video renderer is madVR. It has a selection of algorithms for things like chroma and luma upscaling/downscaling, the best of which are very GPU-intensive.

I don't know if the overclocking helps, but it doesn't hurt. Frankly, I don't know if overclocking helps CUDA performance, but I use CUDA for video decoding (LAV decoder) during playback, and transcoding from one format to another.

 

[jkauff]

You over clocked your GPU so that you can watch video? That made me chuckle. For your uses you would have been far better off with a lower end card like an HD7750. Runs much cooler and quieter than a 660, and will play video all day long.

If you can't see the difference GPU-assisted video decoding, frame rate interpolation, and rendering can make, fine. I can. I also use GPU-assisted video transcoding.

I was skeptical before I made the investment, but I'm very glad I did.

 

[BoFox]

If you can't see the difference GPU-assisted video decoding, frame rate interpolation, and rendering can make, fine. I can. I also use GPU-assisted video transcoding.

I was skeptical before I made the investment, but I'm very glad I did.

LOL, wow, that's cool! I'm also a movie-lover, not just a gamer, but I'm still more of a gamer though - especially when it comes to video cards!

BtW, wouldn't a 120Hz screen help a lot with frame rate interpolation/ pull-down issues?

 

[jkauff]

LOL, wow, that's cool! I'm also a movie-lover, not just a gamer, but I'm still more of a gamer though - especially when it comes to video cards!

BtW, wouldn't a 120Hz screen help a lot with frame rate interpolation/ pull-down issues?

I'd love to have a 120Hz screen. Maybe when the prices come down.