Most PC gamers waste their money on video cards

[Wildman107]

Hey folks,

I'm speaking to the "the 1080p gamers" here that buy into hype and this idea of 'future proofing'. 'Future proofing' in a PC means spending more money, for a little more performance, but the rate of return quickly diminishes.

--Example--
Right now you can easily find a R9 270X for $150. If you're gaming at 1080p, most games out today and in the near future, are very playable with "better than console" graphic options enabled.
Over the next year or two, games will comes out that might force you to turn settings down from Ultra to High, or medium, but more than likely this will not derail any enjoyment from the game itself.

--Or--
Right now you can easily find a GTX 970 for $330. This card is much faster than the R9 270X but at more than twice the price. There's no question that this card is more 'future proof' than the formerly mentioned, and if you highly value minimum frame rate and taxing graphic features it's worth it. However...

--Observation--
Presently, between a R9 270X and a GTX 970, you average gamers would be hard pressed to spot major differences in their PC games at 1080p with the graphics properly tuned for their respective cards. How much time do you think will pass before the difference becomes so noticeable that R9 270X owners feel a need to upgrade? 1.5 years? 2 years? 2.5 years?

Here's the ironic thing about that $180 difference between the two cards. Two years from now, that $180 can likely buy you a faster card, with more up-to-date features compared to the GTX 970 of today. And two years from now when you get that new card, you'll be set again for the next round of video games, while the GTX 970 owner will be stuck turning settings lower than you.



--Disclaimer--
R9 270X and GTX 970 were just examples. Don't read into it as an Nvidia vs AMD thing.


--Edit--
Thanks to everyone who responded and provided their input. "Waste" is definitely too strong a word and most gamers do not buy $300+ video cards as someone pointed out. I have edited my post with your input.

I also thought there were some great posts in this thread:
Virtual Larry: Breaks down practical factors to consider before buying a card.
Eric1987: Questions how crucial 'High' settings are in terms of enjoying the game.
xthetenth: Explains the factors that have to add up, in mathematical terms, for the spirit of my post to make sense.

 

[Silverforce11]

You start your post with a falsehood:

"Right now you can easily find a R9 270X for $150. If you're gaming at 1080p, there simple is no game out today or in the near future, that would bring a R9 270X to its knees. If you don't believe that then you're kidding yourself."

There's plenty of games today that will crush a 980 at 1080p if you run on Ultra.

If you want to game on High, or especially Medium, then sure, you can get away with much less powerful hardware. Or you could go further and game on Low, then Intel's iGPU can do the job, sometimes.

 

[xXxPCxXx]

What about all those people who want to play Star Citizen...?

 

[3DVagabond]

What about all those people who want to play Star Citizen...?

I would wait until it's released.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I think what the OP is fundamentally saying is that price/performance, is on an upward-sloping curve.

Where people choose to purchase along that curve, though, is a personal decision, driven by both desire for game settings, as well as budget.

These decisions can be helped, by looking at appropriate benchmarks, to help select what level of card that they feel that they need, for whatever frame rate and quality settings that they want.

I don't think simply selecting the lowest point on the price/performance curve, for playing at 1080P, at whatever lowered settings that the OP can stand, is really helpful for the general forum population though.

On the other hand, if the OP is basically saying not to buy more GPU than you need, in the near / immediate future, then that I basically agree with.

I recently upgraded from a 7790 1GB card, to a 7950 3GB card. I could have saved my money for 2-3 months, and picked up an R9 290/X, but I felt that was overkill for my gaming needs, especially only at 1080P. But I am glad I picked up the 7950, and not an R9 270 that I originally had my sights on. "Some" future-proofing is alright, I think. Plus, I am able to utilize this particular card's good DP calcs for distributed computing, in the immediate timeframe. So in some sense, it's not really even future-proofing. Only with respect to gaming, because I don't play modern games when they first come out, generally. (Ok, so I paid $50-60 for Skyrim.)

Edit: VRAM requirements of newer games really do factor into this too, not just raw card performance and price. That's one area where future-proofing makes sense, if you don't want to have to upgrade video cards every year. Getting a card with more VRAM can help you be able to play the newest games, even if you have to lower settings a little bit because your card's core is older.

Edit: To make this more concrete, consider these three cards:
HIS iPower IceQ X² Boost H270QM2G2M Radeon R9 270 2GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card $149.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161449

HIS IceQ OC H280QC3G2M Radeon R9 280 3GB 384-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card $169.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161456

SAPPHIRE 100364-4GL Radeon R9 270X 4GB 256-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 Video Card (Dual-X Edition) $189.99 ($20 MIR)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814202049

Those are listed in increasing order of price, and coincidentally (or perhaps not) in order of VRAM size.

VRAM is a "cliff" situation. If you don't have enough, your game won't play. And current console specs play a lot into this as well, as many (most?) PC games are console ports these days (especially with the two biggest consoles sporting x86/x64 APUs), and they have a good amount of VRAM, much bigger (8GB total in the case of PS4) than most video cards have previously come with. That means that most of the newest games that have released since those consoles were released, have bigger VRAM requirements than previously.

This means that getting a card with more VRAM, regardless of core processing power, more or less, ensures greater longevity for that card, without needing to replace it outright.

Edit: I would love to hear RS's take on this.

 

[Mondozei]

There's plenty of games today that will crush a 980 at 1080p if you run on Ultra.

Notice that what matters to most people is the minimum, because that sets the threshold of the experience. Further, average FPS doesn't confer things like microstutter or framepacing issues(this can be resolved to some extent with adaptive sync, but that is still an extreme rarity among gamers.

Can we please bury the myth that to play demanding games at 1080p, you're essentially well-off with a 200 dollar card? And don't tell me these are isolated cases. Witcher 3, Star Citizen, The Division and so on, and so on. Those are mainstream games, especially Witcher 3, not exactly niche titles.

I blame the PCMR crowd for this myth, because in their zealotry to humiliate consoles, they branch out into outlandish lands with crazier and crazier statements.

 

[motsm]

The second you start using MSAA or SGSSAA at 1080p you can push any GPU to it's limits, and I'd say the extra cost for that ability would be well worth it. Beyond that, some gamers are using monitors above 60hz, which can also require a faster GPU.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I can bring a single 780 to its knees, and this is on lowly 1080p 60Hz.

 

[Udgnim]

Right now you can easily find a R9 270X for $150. If you're gaming at 1080p, there simple is no game out today or in the near future, that would bring a R9 270X to its knees. If you don't believe that then you're kidding yourself.

Over the next year or two, games will comes out that might force you to turn settings down from Ultra to High, but seriously most of you will be okay and won't be able to distinguish the difference.

42 FPS > 25.4 FPS

 

[Erenhardt]

I think what the OP is fundamentally saying is that price/performance, is on an upward-sloping curve.

Where people choose to purchase along that curve, though, is a personal decision, driven by both desire for game settings, as well as budget.

These decisions can be helped, by looking at appropriate benchmarks, to help select what level of card that they feel that they need, for whatever frame rate and quality settings that they want.

I don't think simply selecting the lowest point on the price/performance curve, for playing at 1080P, at whatever lowered settings that the OP can stand, is really helpful for the general forum population though.

On the other hand, if the OP is basically saying not to buy more GPU than you need, in the near / immediate future, then that I basically agree with.

I recently upgraded from a 7790 1GB card, to a 7950 3GB card. I could have saved my money for 2-3 months, and picked up an R9 290/X, but I felt that was overkill for my gaming needs, especially only at 1080P. But I am glad I picked up the 7950, and not an R9 270 that I originally had my sights on. "Some" future-proofing is alright, I think. Plus, I am able to utilize this particular card's good DP calcs for distributed computing, in the immediate timeframe. So in some sense, it's not really even future-proofing. Only with respect to gaming, because I don't play modern games when they first come out, generally. (Ok, so I paid $50-60 for Skyrim.)

Edit: VRAM requirements of newer games really do factor into this too, not just raw card performance and price. That's one area where future-proofing makes sense, if you don't want to have to upgrade video cards every year. Getting a card with more VRAM can help you be able to play the newest games, even if you have to lower settings a little bit because your card's core is older.

I upgraded to 7950 3GB aswell. And from 7870 (270x) 2GB. I wouldn't upgrade if my 7870 had 4GB. That card was strong enough to push all (most) AAA games at 1080p with some form of AA. Which is perfect for most people, as AA gives less return for more graphics horsepower you put on it.

The single area where the card was lacking was VRAM. The latest games would stutter with settings too high. I had to lower texture quality to maintain fluid frametimes. Now with 3GB 7950 the games I play (with the same settings) take 2.3-2.8 GB of VRAM.

So yea, OP is not quite right about 270X - if he is talking about 2GB, 4GB whole other story.

I made a cheap upgrade for more VRAM mostly. It is only temporal solution as 3GB is slowly getting barely enough, and soon will be too little.

I expect the VRAM usage to spike in coming years. Who expect PC master race to use less VRAM than console peasants? I expect PC will use at least double the amount console uses. Which should put us at 6GB+. It won't happen overnight, but it will someday!

Anyway, OP is right. I bough myself 7870 for $230 almost two years ago. It was plenty for everything. 7950 was $500 at the time (EU pricing). Now I sold 7870 for $130 and got myself used 7950 for $180.
If I went for 7950 right away I would have to pay $500 upfront, but could enjoy some extra performance. I decided to pay $230 in my initial purchase and later add $50 to that. Grand total of $280 gave me a $500 card in the long run and that was single graphics cards generation. Mid-range to next-mid-range would yield even better results.

 

[Annisman*]

Yeah but it sure is fun.

 

[postmortemIA]

bought my 7850 few yrs back, will keep it for few more... how is it waste? more like good investment for not too much $$.

 

[Red Hawk]

You start your post with a falsehood:

"Right now you can easily find a R9 270X for $150. If you're gaming at 1080p, there simple is no game out today or in the near future, that would bring a R9 270X to its knees. If you don't believe that then you're kidding yourself."

There's plenty of games today that will crush a 980 at 1080p if you run on Ultra.

If you want to game on High, or especially Medium, then sure, you can get away with much less powerful hardware. Or you could go further and game on Low, then Intel's iGPU can do the job, sometimes.

Yep. As a 270X owner (factory overclocked, at that) I can pretty much say you're kidding yourself if you believe this. I've played a lot of Dragon Age Inquisition, with all the settings cranked up to maximum except for MSAA. I find the frame rate playable, but there's no denying that the frame rate will not infrequently dip below 30 FPS, sometimes even hitting 20 FPS. Me, I find that tolerable in exchange for the graphical goodies of having everything cranked up. I didn't quite have the money to go for a 280 when I bought the 270X, or I would have. You may not call that "bringing the card to its knees", but turning on MSAA certainly would cause it. For some people the image quality of MSAA and the ability to push the frame rate to 60 frames per second are quite worth the investment.

And here's the thing -- Dragon Age Inquisition is still held back by having to be made for the Xbox 360 and PS3. I'm sure there were some concessions in designing the game to make sure it could run on those platforms. We're going to see more and more games made to run on the Xbox One, PS4, and PC exclusively. The minimum baseline and the point where you have all the bells and whistles added onto that are assuredly going to increase in the near future. The Witcher 3 promises to be more demanding than Dragon Age Inquisition, with TW3's minimum GPU requirements the same as DAI's recommended requirements.

And this isn't even getting into how poorly optimized games, such as Assassin's Creed Unity, can bring a 270X to its knees. Not necessarily because its visuals are worth it, but it can.

Will a 270X be able to play everything at medium settings (read: on par with consoles) at 1080p and a playable frame rate for the forseeable future? Yes. Is a 270X able to max every game out now with a full 60 frames per second? Hell no.

I'm not sure I would say there are "plenty" of games that would crush a 980 at 1080p, but in most new games coming out you're definitely going to see an improvement in getting a GTX 970 or an R9 290X over a 270X. Now, it is true that there is a price/performance curve where you start to see diminishing returns on graphics performance proportional to paying more money. It is what it is. That price/performance curve does not completely invalidate spending money on those high-end cards as a "waste" for those who have the money for it, though.

 

[sxr7171]

You start your post with a falsehood:

"Right now you can easily find a R9 270X for $150. If you're gaming at 1080p, there simple is no game out today or in the near future, that would bring a R9 270X to its knees. If you don't believe that then you're kidding yourself."

There's plenty of games today that will crush a 980 at 1080p if you run on Ultra.

If you want to game on High, or especially Medium, then sure, you can get away with much less powerful hardware. Or you could go further and game on Low, then Intel's iGPU can do the job, sometimes.

^^^ That's all I have to say. Do some people not use anti-aliasing at all? Can barely get Crysis 3 to run at 60fps at 1080p on an overclocked 980GTX. R9 270x would render out a slideshow.

 

[SPBHM]

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_960_G1_Gaming/images/crysis3_1920_1080.gif

42 FPS > 25.4 FPS

it's nice to have options, choosing different cards or different settings, this game looks fine on high with FXAA or whatever and it runs well with lower cards but yes, if you want "max settings" or over 1080P even a 980 can struggle,


well, something to think about, the 270X is only possible at this price because people are paying also for the higher end cards I guess, if they could only sell $150 cards we wouldn't have as nice GPUs as we have now, so even if you don't feel comfortable buying the more expensive card, it's not really a bad thing that others are.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Hey folks,

I'm speaking to the vast majority here, "the 1080p gamers" that buy into hype and this idea of 'future proofing'. 'Future proofing' in a PC means spending more money, for a little more performance, but the rate of return is absolutely terrible.

--Example--
Right now you can easily find a R9 270X for $150. If you're gaming at 1080p, there simple is no game out today or in the near future, that would bring a R9 270X to its knees. If you don't believe that then you're kidding yourself.

Over the next year or two, games will comes out that might force you to turn settings down from Ultra to High, but seriously most of you will be okay and won't be able to distinguish the difference.

--Or--
Right now you can easily find a GTX 970 for $330. This card is much faster than the R9 270X but at more than twice the price. There's no question that this card is more 'future proof' than the formerly mentioned. However, their isn't much value in the extra money you're spending from a performance perspective.

--Observation--
Presently, between a R9 270X and a GTX 970, you will not see any noticeable difference in your PC games at 1080p with the graphics turned up. How much time do you think will pass before the difference becomes so noticeable that R9 270X owner feels a need to upgrade? 1.5 years? 2 years? 2.5 years?

Here's the ironic thing about that $180 difference between the two cards. Two years from now, you better believe that $180 can buy you a faster card, with more up-to-date features compared to the GTX 970 of today. And two years from now when you get that new card, you'll be set again for the next round of video games, while the GTX 970 owner will be stuck turning settings lower than you.



--Disclaimer--
I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to offend anyone. I fully understand that some people need high end cards for resolutions well above 1080p and others simply like to spend their money on whatever they wish because they can.


R9 270X and GTX 970 were just examples. Don't read into it as an Nvidia vs AMD thing. I'm not trying to argue about specific features, or driver quality. If that's what influenced you're decision I have no beef with you. This is merely a post to newbie PC gamers to help them save a few bucks.

What videocard do you think "most gamers" buy?

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Or you could just time it right and get a 290X for ~$180

 

[kasakka]

It depends on what you want. At 1080p something like a GTX 770 still runs most games quite well. If you desire 60 fps at high graphics settings then you'll need something faster.

For anything above 1080p (or 1080p with heavy antialiasing) you're going to need either two cards or one of the fastest ones.

Overall these days people don't seem to want to use lower graphic settings at all, even though the difference in image quality between "ultra" and "high" are often negligible. I wish more PC developers pushed their games with settings that are unplayable on anything but something crazy like 4 cards. In the future (if those games are good enough to warrant playing again) some card will run it at max.

 

[2is]

Sounds like OP likes the bottom end of midrange cards and thinks everyone who doesn't is wasting their money.

 

[SimianR]

I think the vast majority of people are spending $100-200 tops on video cards though. Enthusiasts who browse graphics card forums and spend $300+ on video cards are in the minority.

 

[imaheadcase]

I think the vast majority of people are spending $100-200 tops on video cards though. Enthusiasts who browse graphics card forums and spend $300+ on video cards are in the minority.

Yep, most people are fine with that price range. They would turn settings down for it just to play greatest game to.

The problem i find is people get turned off for higher gaming cards because of the likes of stuff "gaming laptops" "Alienware gaming PC" that cost a ton. They think that is what you need to get a good computer. I would even go as far to say most people don't even know you can upgrade a video card in a PC.

 

[kasakka]

Yep, most people are fine with that price range. They would turn settings down for it just to play greatest game to.

The problem i find is people get turned off for higher gaming cards because of the likes of stuff "gaming laptops" "Alienware gaming PC" that cost a ton. They think that is what you need to get a good computer. I would even go as far to say most people don't even know you can upgrade a video card in a PC.

It's probably that people buy those gaming laptops that they end up using for several years as the initial investment is quite large. Only this year we are getting gaming laptops that come even close to their desktop counterparts in GPU power.

 

[ShintaiDK]

270X and gaming in 1080p means you have to compromise on settings. Some games more than others.

 

[NTMBK]

980 Tri-SLI or GTFO.

 

[Kuiva maa]

I have a 7870LE , the tahiti edition, a bit faster than standard 7870s and R9 270Xs. And I can assure you there are plenty titles out there, some not even new ones that bring it to its knees. Crysis 3, Hitman Absolution, Dragon Age Inquisition just to name a few.