[TBG] Video card rankings *Includes R9 290X*

[wand3r3r]

The Tech Buyers Guru has an interesting and straightforward video card ranking system.

The concept is that there is a ranking 1x, 2x, ... 8x speed based on the 8800 GT. Additionally there's a Price/Performance ranking.

In this article, we present a ranking of many of the most popular graphics cards released over the past five years. We rank them versus a baseline "1x" Speed Rating, representing the venerable and very popular GeForce 8800GT. We currently profile cards ranging from one to eight times faster than the 8800GT. Note that we don't necessarily recommend all these cards - the purpose here is to present the range of video cards available and their relative performance to price ratios, which we provide as a "P/P Rating." Our goal is to get you the maximum performance gain for your dollar with your next upgrade!

What I find very interesting is the chart on the second page with the price trends. It will be interesting to see the proposed lines extended and see how accurate it is.

Perhaps the most important conclusions that can be drawn from our data is what you find when you track a certain price point horizontally across the Cost Curves. Generally speaking, a doubling of power at a given price takes 2.5-3 years, depending on the price point, with much of the price drop happening early on. For example, at $250, we see the jump from 1x to 2x occur between September 2007 and June 2010. In the $300-400 range, we see the jump from 1.5x to 3x occur between June 2008 and November 2010. At the same time, we still haven't doubled the speed of the GTX 480 at the $500 price point, despite over three years passing, although the $550 R9 290X comes very, very close. And between $75 and $125, there's almost no progress at all. It's taken three years to boost speed 50 percent at the $100 mark! Note that while several cost curves appear to converge at $50, in reality, most product classes are discontinued (or their prices stagnate in the $75-$100 range) due to thin margins in that market.

http://www.techbuyersguru.com/VideoCardRankings.php

What do you think of it?

 

[cbrunny]

My first reaction is that this is designed for people that don't want to actually learn about what they're buying, but want to feel like they're learning at least something about it.

I'm particularly confused by the categories. This idea of 4x or 6x performance or whatever... it's intriguing, except they're bundling cards together and slapping a tag on it instead of actually saying what the multiple is for each individual card. That would be substantially more interesting to me, and would actually add that third dimension they're going for. But, it would still be insufficient in these circles, where buyers want to know what benchmarks were run & on what settings, what hardware, etc. All relevant info or so I'm told if you know how to read it. I sure don't.

The graph should be a 3d graph with x being date, y being cost, and z being multiple/performance.

 

[wand3r3r]

My first reaction is that this is designed for people that don't want to actually learn about what they're buying, but want to feel like they're learning at least something about it.

I'm particularly confused by the categories. This idea of 4x or 6x performance or whatever... it's intriguing, except they're bundling cards together and slapping a tag on it instead of actually saying what the multiple is for each individual card. That would be substantially more interesting to me, and would actually add that third dimension they're going for. But, it would still be insufficient in these circles, where buyers want to know what benchmarks were run & on what settings, what hardware, etc. All relevant info or so I'm told if you know how to read it. I sure don't.

The graph should be a 3d graph with x being date, y being cost, and z being multiple/performance.

I see your point on the ease of use, although I disagree that it's only for someone who doesn't want to learn about the cards. I am interested in price / performance as the first criteria in purchases in which this idea excels.

I can see the ambiguity of the 1x, 2x, performance since e.g. the 7950, 660 ti, 760 are bundled under the 4x speed rating with the +/- several percent differences, however it becomes clear with the P/P rating. However, in the long term they are all in the same ballpark anyway. This is one thing I've grown fond of in [H]'s reviews which ranks "playability" as well as the direct comparison, and I'd say this will give you a similar ballpark comparison. The key (in my opinion) is that the cards in the same ballpark give you a direction, and from there you can refine it further.

Take the example of the 5x speed. The R9 280X and GTX 770 share that ranking. They are pretty close, with the edge going to the 770, however there is currently a $100 33% premium on the 770.

The 280X P/P rating: P/P Rating at Release = 1.67
vs. 770 P/P Rating (Oct. 2013) = 1.25

That gives you a very accurate ranking.


As for the 3D graph, you may be on to something. There is a ton of information condensed into those pages and there could be different ways to display it.