Most PC gamers waste their money on video cards

[Eric1987]

He's most likely referring to having uber sampling on.

But this is an issue related to what the OP talks about, how critical is actually achieving those settings in terms of enjoying the game?

What would be interesting is a blind test is done with a sample of gamers (perhaps with different backgrounds) and seeing what the actual threshold is before individuals can actually reliably determine which is providing a better experience.

Compare a GTX 980 and GTX 960 for instance using GFE recommended settings at 1080p across a sample of games (or a r9 290x vs r9 270x). How many people can actually reliably tell the difference by playing them one after another? Not in terms of side by side and comparing details or combing through static screenshot comparisons but actually playing regularly? No seeing the settings menu or using any sort of fps counters either, just impression purely from regular playing and not specifically looking for differences.

It would be interesting to do this type of test with each of the following conditions -
1) Trying to keep performance (frame rate, frame times, min fps) constant
2) Trying to keep graphics settings constant
3) Adjusting both aspects

However I'm not sure how much interest a hardware site would have in actually investigating this due to the complexity of doing so and it conflicts with their own interests as well, since they do need to interest readers in reading about new hardware.

Sure there are likely some outlier individuals with extreme sensitivity and may notice even minute changes (say the difference between a 290x and 290) but I have a feeling that even the majority of self proclaimed "enthusiasts" will not. It's basically like the whole "golden ear" audiophile situation, most people really are not as special as they think they are.

Granted at the moment there is somewhat transitional period currently with VRAM requirements which does make the current gap between high end and mid range cards more noticeable.

Um yes so am I. When I say maxed out besides AA I mean it.

 

[Eric1987]

[Redacted]

Infraction issued for profanity and personal attack.

-Rvenger

 

[exar333]

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.

I think I get the 'spirit' of what you are saying, but PC graphics are different to different people.

You are absolutely right if you are referring to someone who is gaming at 1080P and just wants graphics on-par with consoles (more or less). A 270x would do just great at that (provide ~30fps with solid min/max framerate with suitable IQ).

On the other hand, those that want a solid 60fps (or 120hz/144hz) will need more GPU power to hit those goals. Even more if you want to crank-up the IQ levels....

It's all about experience. A 270X would be fine to play any game out there, sure, but PC gaming is all about having the choice to decide what you want.

 

[xthetenth]

I think that buying cheaper cards and running lower settings to save money is totally valid and getting better hardware is paying enthusiast tax.

However, buying those cards as a way to save money doesn't work that well. Take for example a user who buys a $300 card every two generations. For buying a $150 card every generation to make sense, the generational gain would have to be significantly greater than the jump from a $150 to a $300 card. If it's just the same size, it's accepting a subpar gaming experience for one generation and just catching up in the next generation. You'd have to be pretty deep in the land of diminishing returns to make those changes line up. For example a 10% jump by spending twice as much probably isn't worth it because a generational advance of 25% would make spending less more often make sense.

Part of the way the graphics card market works is that there is a certain level of value in a discrete GPU in and of itself without accounting for performance beyond a bare minimum. So rather than an exponential curve of ever more money for a given size performance increase starting at none of each, it's starting at some price and barely any performance with a relatively large gain in performance per price. So it takes a while to get to the performance/price maxima for a generation, and a bit farther still to the point where spending more often makes more sense than spending more.

Important note: the longer the upgrade cycle the easier it is for more often to beat more money. If it's two vs. four generations, then the gap from spending more has to be bigger. 50% more performance is nice if the market's gained 25% more, but not if it's gained 100% more.

 

[brandonb]

I'd just like to mention that I bought the 7970 when it came out for $600. It still to this day has no trouble running any games that I throw at it. You can buy that level of performance for $200-$300 these days (if not cheaper.)

Did I overbuy? Yes...

Why did I buy it? I planned to use eyefinity, and wanted something strong enough to run 3 screens.

But eyefinity didn't work very well, most games did not support the high resolution, so ultimately I stopped using it, and now I have a card that is overkill.

If I was shopping today. I would have bought a 7850 and skipped the eyefinity.

So next time around. I'll make sure to just buy the $200 card and stick to a single screen.

 

[Stuka87]

A 270X is a bit weak for newer games. I am still rocking my day one 7950 and it does play any game out provided the settings are not too high. So its ok for now until the 300 series comes out.

If I can get 4 years out of a card by paying a bit more up front, I am fine with that. Otherwise you are buying a cheaper card every 2 years. So, not really saving much.

 

[2is]

I'd just like to mention that I bought the 7970 when it came out for $600. It still to this day has no trouble running any games that I throw at it. You can buy that level of performance for $200-$300 these days (if not cheaper.)

Did I overbuy? Yes...

Why did I buy it? I planned to use eyefinity, and wanted something strong enough to run 3 screens.

But eyefinity didn't work very well, most games did not support the high resolution, so ultimately I stopped using it, and now I have a card that is overkill.

If I was shopping today. I would have bought a 7850 and skipped the eyefinity.

So next time around. I'll make sure to just buy the $200 card and stick to a single screen.

That has just as much to do with bad timing as it does buying the top end card. The 7970's were overpriced when they hit the market, and prices were dropped by well over $100 very soon afterwards when the 670/680's hit the market. Most people didn't pay $600 for their 7970's.

You're essentially saying that if you could go back, you'd have wanted to put yourself in a situation where you'd have bought a 7850, and by now you'd likely want to upgrade that, so you look at the middle of the road cards once more and buy a 270x... You've just spent money on two cards, and you're still below the performance of a 7970 and will be until your next upgrade... So in the end you're in a situation where you haven't saved any money, spent more time tinkering with swapping cards and installing drivers and had worse performance during the majority of the time, up until your third upgrade.

Doesn't really make sense

 

[Paul98]

Considering the 270x is just higher clocked 7870, that is a terribly out of date card. Especially of the cost compared to a 290 for twice the performance, and upgraded architecture, 4gb of vram.

 

[Magic Carpet]

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.

My 270 @ 1,1 Ghz barely gives me playable framerates in Far Cry 4 at maximum settings. And that was at 1680x1050. Dunno, what games you play and at what settings. P.S. The FC4 benches at TPU are useless. This is my bench, note the minimum framerates, 670 is 50% faster with higher settings. 270X is possibly the worst card to buy now if you aim to play AAA titles at higher settings. And @ 1080p you can clearly run out of VRAM in some games, today.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
46216, 617969, 20, 601, 74.787 R9 270 @ 1.1Ghz Everything Max, minus Nvidia settings Max 1922MB Mem USAGE

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
47771, 724172, 29, 701, 65.966 GTX 670 @ 1.25Ghz Everything Max incl. Nvidia settings Max 1687MB Mem USAGE

 

[brandonb]

in the end you're in a situation where you haven't saved any money, spent more time tinkering with swapping cards and installing drivers and had worse performance during the majority of the time, up until your third upgrade.

Doesn't really make sense

That would be true, except I never upgrade video cards. When I buy video cards, it comes with a computer when I build it. I give away my old computers to friends/family/kids, etc. when I upgrade (purchasing a brand new computer, video card and all) as hand me downs.

I only upgrade every 3-4 years. If they wish to upgrade it, that's their prerogative.

 

[Sohaltang]

Check out our own valley thread. These scores are all 1080P on extreme (maxed). Where is the 7870/270x? I have a 970M in my new laptop and it struggles with many games. Its benches the same as a 7950. Also many are moving to higher refresh rates. My laptop is 75hz. To average 75 fps I would need a 290x or 780ti. Also consider many of these scores are walking a fine line of instability. Very high OC's.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...bjQ2UWZQUDZ0dVE&single=true&gid=0&output=html

/thread

 

[Morbus]

I bought my 760 (Gigabyte OC edition) a year ago for 220€ when the more or less equivalent 280 was selling for 250€.

A year later my card is sold new for 200€ while the the 280 sells for 210€ so I'd say I bought the card that held its value the most.

This is my local market, I don't buy cards off of amazon or ebay, and certainly not from outside the EU.

I do agree with the OP that buying cheap, saving the money, and buying cheap again halfway through the life of the card is the way to go, but buying expensive and selling the card each year can work just as well, if not better. It's riskier, and is more troublesome, but it's CAN be just as effective.

I personally know of a few people who do it and always have the last sheet in their rigs.

 

[escrow4]

I paid $929 for this 780 Ti GHz and around $1300 for a Titan (which I returned) before it and I'll spend another $1K for a 980 Ti. $300 is nothing. I'd spend more than that on the CPU.

 

[nFeF]

That has just as much to do with bad timing as it does buying the top end card. The 7970's were overpriced when they hit the market, and prices were dropped by well over $100 very soon afterwards when the 670/680's hit the market. Most people didn't pay $600 for their 7970's.

You're essentially saying that if you could go back, you'd have wanted to put yourself in a situation where you'd have bought a 7850, and by now you'd likely want to upgrade that, so you look at the middle of the road cards once more and buy a 270x... You've just spent money on two cards, and you're still below the performance of a 7970 and will be until your next upgrade... So in the end you're in a situation where you haven't saved any money, spent more time tinkering with swapping cards and installing drivers and had worse performance during the majority of the time, up until your third upgrade.

Doesn't really make sense

I bought a 7850, probably right around the time he bought his 7970. It's quite nicely OCed and still going strong. I'll probably be looking to replace it end of this year or beginning of next but it definitely won't be with a 270x.

 

[SPBHM]

My 270 @ 1,1 Ghz barely gives me playable framerates in Far Cry 4 at maximum settings. And that was at 1680x1050. Dunno, what games you play and at what settings. P.S. The FC4 benches at TPU are useless. This is my bench, note the minimum framerates, 670 is 50% faster with higher settings. 270X is possibly the worst card to buy now if you aim to play AAA titles at higher settings. And @ 1080p you can clearly run out of VRAM in some games, today.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
46216, 617969, 20, 601, 74.787 R9 270 @ 1.1Ghz Everything Max, minus Nvidia settings Max 1922MB Mem USAGE

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
47771, 724172, 29, 701, 65.966 GTX 670 @ 1.25Ghz Everything Max incl. Nvidia settings Max 1687MB Mem USAGE

well, "max settings" and a cheaper card is probably not a good choice,

270 looks pretty good to me playing FC4
http://youtu.be/wFXND2JZlGQ?t=1m47s

I'm sure it can get worse during gameplay but, at the end of the day its a 30FPS console port,

 

[Magic Carpet]

well, "max settings" and a cheaper card is probably not a good choice,

Well, the OP claimed you can max every game at 1080p with a measly 270x. Which is clearly not true. Anyway, I see the OP has been edited, more like it now.

270 looks pretty good to me playing FC4
http://youtu.be/wFXND2JZlGQ?t=1m47s

Minus Nvidia settings it plays fairly well, but it has framerate drops from time to time. I have clocked many hours running it against my 670. There was even one time where my fps dropped to like 7fps for a short while. Point being, it's just not powerful enough for this game. However, if you look at TPU benches, 270X is on par with GTX 680, which is just laughable. Some review sites don't even mention the exact graphics options, they are used during benching. And certainly, you need to play a game for some time, to be more or less objective. Not a 30-second fly-by mode.

e.g.

Each game is tested at the following settings and resolutions:
1600x900, 4x Anti-aliasing. Common resolution for most smaller flatscreens and laptops today (17" - 19").
1920x1080, 4x Anti-aliasing. Most common widescreen resolution for larger displays (22" - 26").
2560x1440, 4x Anti-aliasing. Highest possible 16:9 resolution for commonly available displays (27"-32").
3840x2160, No Anti-aliasing. 4K Ultra HD resolution, available on the latest high-end monitors.

2014's most anticipated shooter, Far Cry 4 takes us to the Himalayan country of Kyrat (based loosely on Nepal or Bhutan, with Indian influences), where our protagonist is abducted by a mysterious local warlord and turned into an errand boy. It may sound all too similar to Far Cry 3, but the game's mountainous and snowy jungle setting is a huge departure from the tropical-island setting of its predecessor, giving you some genuinely new gameplay elements, such as vertical combat. Based on the latest version of the Dunia 2 engine, Far Cry 4 takes advantage of DirectX 11 and is extremely resource-heavy.

What kind of explanation is that, lmao. We are not at McD's. Quality has gone down, so much, it's not even funny.

I'm sure it can get worse during gameplay but, at the end of the day its a 30FPS console port,

Well, 30FPS in FC4 doesn't feel good at all, you can have it capped at 30 FPS by going to Options and using a different Vsync mode, though. But it doesn't feel smooth at all. If that's what console owners get then.. I rest my case.

 

[Chocu1a]

Is it a waste if I get enjoyment out of it?

 

[Golgatha]

How about the folks who buy the $400 cards today and sell the old one off for $200+? Hey look, I enjoy high end graphics without breaking the bank.

 

[SPBHM]

Well, the OP claimed you can max every game at 1080p with a measly 270x. Which is clearly not true. Anyway, I see the OP has been edited, more like it now.


Minus Nvidia settings it plays fairly well, but it has framerate drops from time to time. I have clocked many hours running it against my 670. There was even one time where my fps dropped to like 7fps for a short while. Point being, it's just not powerful enough for this game. However, if you look at TPU benches, 270X is on par with GTX 680, which is just laughable. Some review sites don't even mention the exact graphics options, they are used during benching. And certainly, you need to play a game for some time, to be more or less objective. Not a 30-second fly-by mode.

e.g.





What kind of explanation is that, lmao. We are not at McD's. Quality has gone down, so much, it's not even funny.


Well, 30FPS in FC4 doesn't feel good at all, you can have it capped at 30 FPS by going to Options and using a different Vsync mode, though. But it doesn't feel smooth at all. If that's what console owners get then.. I rest my case.

I haven't played FC4, but FC3 at 30FPS was not very good (some games feel a lot smoother at 30FPS, like Crysis)

but using a gamepad helps to hide these problems nicely, and the frame delivery on the consoles is very consistent for this game.

max settings is normally a bad idea, and what exactly is "max settings"? for some games it's crazy amounts of MSAA, or supersampling, and even the higher end card can't run well.

while short runs for testing games is not very accurate it gives some idea, the FC4 opening scene on that video looks somewhat demanding, and the full test provides settings (1080P, high, SMAA)

 

[SteveGrabowski]

^^^ 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.

Wow, you can do a locked 60FPS on Very High system spec for Crysis 3 on a 980? My 970 can't even come close, as it goes a lot into the 50s and sometimes 40s. But I know it's not CPU bottleneck since my GPU usage is at 100% constantly (using a Xeon E3-1231v3).

 

[TemjinGold]

Interesting that the OP has not returned to this thread. In any case, this is no different from arguing "People who rent 3-bdrm apartments are wasting money. I mean, you can just buy less crap and squeeze tighter into a studio apartment. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves."

Oh and OP: 2 years from now, the 970 owner can sell his/her 970 for $180 and have the exact same options as the person who went the cheaper route.

 

[jamesgalb]

So what the OP is trying to say is...

I could buy a AMD 280 for $180 right now, and then 1-2 years down the line something comparable to a GTX 970 for $180... Giving me 1-2 years with a 280 and 1-2 years with a GTX 970 for $360....

Or I could spend $360 now and have a GTX 970 for 3+ years, and not be stuck with 1-2 years of medium/high settings that look like a Console...

Makes sense. :|

 

[SPBHM]

So what the OP is trying to say is...

I could buy a AMD 280 for $180 right now, and then 1-2 years down the line something comparable to a GTX 970 for $180... Giving me 1-2 years with a 280 and 1-2 years with a GTX 970 for $360....

Or I could spend $360 now and have a GTX 970 for 3+ years, and not be stuck with 1-2 years of medium/high settings that look like a Console...

Makes sense. :|

there are to many variables, like in 2 years we are going to have DX12 as the standard and different types of ram, new process, if you go 2 years back (2013) things looked more stable, same DX, same memory, same process...

not sure what was the $180 card 2 years ago, 7870? it's pretty close to the current $180 cards, but I expect a bigger difference for a 2017 $180 card.

 

[jamesgalb]

there are to many variables, like in 2 years we are going to have DX12 as the standard and different types of ram, new process, if you go 2 years back (2013) things looked more stable, same DX, same memory, same process...

not sure what was the $180 card 2 years ago, 7870? it's pretty close to the current $180 cards, but I expect a bigger difference for a 2017 $180 card.

and a $360 card 2 years ago? Worse or better than a AMD 280?

Im struggling to find a 3-4 era/period when spending $150-$180 2x turned out better than spending $300-$360 1x...

The 'upgrade' on the 2nd $150-$180 purchase doesnt exceed the initial $300-$360 purchase enough to make the 1-2 years of sub-par gaming worth it...

Atleast with the 'upfront' option I get 1-2 years of Ultra gaming before I am reduced to Medium/High settings. By splitting my purchases up I am limited to medium/high settings for my entire 3-4 years of gaming, and in 4 years of PC gaming and $300-$350 spent on graphics I will never get to experience the superior graphics of a proper PC gaming rig...

(nevermind that current purchases can be compared to consoles for longevity, and anything new over the last 2 years should last much longer than previous generations of GPUs have, IMO)

 

[tential]

Is it a waste if I get enjoyment out of it?

There is no enjoyment here. Only numbers and opinions.