• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Which GPU do you think have aged the worst in the last 3 years?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
680 and 780, and I guess Titan (for gaming) as well. But with that said, I don't think any GPUs aged that poorly. Graphics haven't advanced too much over the past 3 years, and outside of running higher resolutions or 144Hz, there hasn't been much that has pushed GPUs forward.

I'm going to end up with ~3 years+ of life out of not my Titans by the time Pascal generation GPUs arrive. Not bad for some poorly aging cards? 😛
 
Your 4GB ram is holding the system back. You need at least 16GB RAM for future and current games.. You wont get hitches and hickups.. etc..
 
Any nVidia card.
They're built to be 5% faster in benchmarks using month old games even if 6 month later they're 10% behind.
The worst of them all, the one that started that whole joke of 500$ mid range, being the 680, the one that showed ppl don't buy graphic cards but buy nVidia, however a rip off that is.
 
680 and 780, and I guess Titan (for gaming) as well. But with that said, I don't think any GPUs aged that poorly. Graphics haven't advanced too much over the past 3 years, and outside of running higher resolutions or 144Hz, there hasn't been much that has pushed GPUs forward.

I'm going to end up with ~3 years+ of life out of not my Titans by the time Pascal generation GPUs arrive. Not bad for some poorly aging cards? 😛

Yea my 670 SLI are going to be almost 4 years old by the time pascal comes out. I thought they were still going strong, having not had any problems whatsoever, boy was I wrong! After reading this thread I now realise they are junk and am using them as doorstops. I have replaced them with a pair of potatoes that I mashed into the PCI slots.
 
So why isn't the portion in which the GPU is slower than the competition (The beginning) being factored into this equation?

What if your GPU is slower than the competition for 3 years, then in the third year, it's faster. Is that really a good value? What if it's 4 years?

Time spent being faster is a huge part of the equation.... Time being available counts as well. If I can buy a GPU, it's better than a GPU that is in the future that I can't buy, as that's performance I can use now. Time matters to play as time is money/value.

Because that portion is far less relevant.

Does it really matter if you are getting 80 or 90 fps? Not really. You won't even notice. How about a year later, when you are getting 55 instead of 45? Then yes, you will notice the difference in performance.
 
Back
Top