GPU comparison sheet

[jonathanscole]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dujafidjv32iy8s/Desktop%20Gam...

Hello everyone!

I wanted to put together a graphical representation of how the GPUs compare with one another. I have created an XLsheet with all of the info from a few sources. Can you please have a look at it and tell me what you think? Your feedback would be awesome! I am trying to get a general idea of how the cards compare... it is a soft analysis. It is kind of fun because I have never seen them lined up like this online anywhere.

The cards align with each other per row not exactly, but within an acceptable comparable range. Also, it is only for gaming, not for benchmarking. And the comparisons are 'soft' margined, since some cards are better in some games than others, and builds can affect their performance too. What do you think about the layout? How about the Intel graphics? I am good with Nvidia, all my builds are Nvidia, so i am trying to get an idea about AMD and Intel...

latest build 2017 winter: I7 6700 - Asus Sabertooth S170 Arctic Camo - GTX 1070 OC QuickSilver - 16 GB 2333 - Obsedian case - Multiple SSD and HD drives

 

[guskline]

Nice job, jonathanscole!

 

[happy medium]

Nice first post, and welcome.

I'll be back with some input.

 

[cfenton]

This is neat. I think Notebookcheck used to have a GPU hierarchy similar to this, but they are very focused on mobile GPUs.

Two things jump out at me. First, the 1080TI is faster than Vega 64 liquid. I'd put the 1080ti in the same row as the Titan Xp or create a new 2nd row and put Vega 64 Liquid in 3rd. Second, I'd be surprised if the GTX 690 keeps up with a GTX 980 in modern games. It's basically a 2GB card, which is going to hurt its performance in games built with 4GB cards in mind.

 

[jonathanscole]

Hi!

Thanks for the feedback! Fun to discuss this on an open sheet format. Easier to visualize i feel.

Cfenton thanks for the info - i have made some changes. I agree, the limited VRAM is going to really halt the card when it comes to newer games with larger texture maps. For graphics intensive games 4 GB seems to be the min if one wants to hit High settings and enjoy some graphical pluses. For less demanding games, 3GB can get the job done (thinking management sims etc). What do you think?

Any more input? It would be great to have a good sheet to share around as much as possible.

Jonathan

 

[jonathanscole]

and on top of that running the 690 in SLI does not tally the VRAM... thanks for helping me out on that.

 

[jonathanscole]

Everything is written pretty small to fit, but you can zoom in and see everything easily.

 

[jonathanscole]

here is an updated version

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iomxgq6afhdj5xx/GPU Desktop Gaming Performance.pdf?dl=0

 

[Hitman928]

Quick observations,

R9 290x, 290, and 280x should all move up 1.
R9 285 should be equal to 380, 370x should be below 280.

 

[spinejam]

Nice!

 

[monkeydelmagico]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388.html

 

[CuriousMike]

One suggestion would be to make the rows *alternating colors.
When trying to compare ( for example ) an R9 390 to the NVIDIA equivalent, it's a long way for my eyes to travel to find the equivalence.

* not talking drastic colors - normal / slightly brighter normal.