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

[PPB]

I am sure some people do buy Titan series for prosumer applications but the recent Titan X was really a low blow - NV basically took a consumer GM200 and doubled its VRAM and we got a $550 GTX580 3GB successor for $1000. Rest assured there is a market of PC gamers who want to buy the best whether it's labelled the Titan or not. I am actually surprised NV hasn't raised the price of the Titan to $1300-1500. It seems that many Titan X owners like the idea of knowing their card costs the most and it's the fastest so I think NV still hasn't quite reached the peak of the Titan brand's potential. If next generation they add back DP and go 32GB of HBM2, I can see them going to $1300-1500. Wouldn't you if you knew that the TX customers would still buy them?

Bad comparison, 580s were already "Titan's" on their own accord, DP perf was never crippled on those (and thats why you had the low gaming perf-watt on GF110), so even a 580 3GB was a steal for the prosumer compared to the Titan, not even talking about Titan X, which is as crippled in DP capabilites as the 980 Ti, and only has double the VRAM.

 

[happy medium]

In all fairness what would a person upgrade from a 550$ 7970 ghz edition to a 280x or even a 290x at release? For ~ a 20% increase? I wouldn't. 7970 owners had nothing to upgrade to till this year with the release of fury.

On the other hand 500$ 2gb gtx680 performance crown owners had a highly overclockable 780ti to upgrade to.

780ti performance crown owners had a gtx980ti to upgrade to.

All worthy upgrades.

For AMD 7970 owners is was better drivers with the same feature set or nothing till the overpriced Fury or the same old 290 now called 390.

I mean AMD is and must get every drip out of there drivers to make the same old high power consuming card last longer.

In the end we all pay more for the best fastest cards at release if we can afford them. And if we can afford them usually WE DONT CARE HOW LONG IT LASTS! We buy the next fastest card, that's why this is a enthusiast forum , not best price/performance forum.

 

[Majcric]

The GTX 780ti. This card was put in a tough spot the moment it was released with only 3gb Vram vs. the performance it could deliver with an OC.

 

[iiiankiii]

This is easy. The whole Kepler line. One of the worst cards to keep around.

 

[PPB]

This is easy. The whole Kepler line. One of the worst cards to keep around.

Saving this quote if Maxwell finds a similar fate next year.

 

[happy medium]

This is easy. The whole Kepler line. One of the worst cards to keep around.

At least Kepler owners had a choice, 7970 folks had no choice but to keep it around. ANd people wonder why AMD is broke and not selling cards? Nothing to upgrade to for years! Sounds like their cpu division, don't it?

 

[happy medium]

Saving this quote if Maxwell finds a similar fate next year.

Well Maxwell will be over 2 years old by then so its possible.

 

[KaRLiToS]

At least Kepler owners had a choice, 7970 folks had no choice but to keep it around. ANd people wonder why AMD is broke and not selling cards? Nothing to upgrade to for years! Sounds like their cpu division, don't it?

Why are you hammering AMD? You don't like other people choice of responses in this thread?

Fixed.

This is what I meant GK 104. I had one GTX 680 and it was too much.

 

[Majcric]

This is easy. The whole Kepler line. One of the worst cards to keep around.

I actually think one would be hard pressed to tell the difference between say a 780ti vs. 290/x or a 680 vs. 7970. Of course, Vram being the exception. Keep in mind though, Fury/x (4gb)could meet this same fate in the next year or 2.

 

[happy medium]

Why are you hammering AMD?

DId I say something that wasn't true? I be glad to debate the facts.

 

[Leyawiin]

...a review that gives 780 a huge boost due to Project CARS, WoW... 780 was one of the worst buys at $650.

Maybe at launch, but I got one almost a year ago for $260 (PNY GTX 780 CC). At the time it was 6% slower than an R9 290 and 20% faster than an R9 280X. Now it sits almost squarely in the middle between the two (15% slower and 14% faster). That's fine given what I paid for it. It also used a good deal less power than an R9 290 (about 60-65w) and slightly less than an R9 280X. Plus it supports Adaptive Vertical Sync via the drivers (which AMD still does not and probably never will) and I refuse to give that up - use it in almost all my games. As far as WoW goes, I play the hell out of it. Basically, whether something is a turd or not depends on the timing of the purchase/amount paid, what you intend to use it for and brand specific features. I do hope that performance decline (or stagnation - AMD's driver performance is getting better relative to Nvidia's) is over. Regardless, I'm sure it'll do me for another year or two.

 

[iiiankiii]

At least Kepler owners had a choice, 7970 folks had no choice but to keep it around. ANd people wonder why AMD is broke and not selling cards? Nothing to upgrade to for years! Sounds like their cpu division, don't it?

huh? I don't get it? What are we talking about again? I thought we were talking about cards that haven't aged well? Am I in the wrong thread? My bad..

 

[badb0y]

As someone who went from:

GTX 460>6950>7970>780 SLI>980 Ti

The 780 was easily the worst purchase of the lot. Especially in modern games the performance was especially lacking, The Witcher 3 essentially forced my hand into upgrading...

Yes, I know, I ended up with a 980 Ti even though nVidia screwed us Kepler owners over but AMD is hardly putting up a fight these days...

 

[happy medium]

780 was easily the worst purchase of the lot

And you bought 2 of them?
Question if you overclocked both 780's wouldn't that ~ = a gtx980ti?
Or did you buy he 980ti for the 6gb for a 4k monitor? The witcher 3 was fixed I think a week later with a driver update for Kepler.
Or was it that one card was better than sli?

 

[Piroko]

This is easy. The whole Kepler line. One of the worst cards to keep around.

That's a weird statement, some cards aged reasonably well. In my opinion, the 660 and 670 for example.

At least Kepler owners had a choice, 7970 folks had no choice but to keep it around.

That's an even weirder argument, "I couldn't spend money, I'm so unfortunate!". 7970 owners had the exact same choice as anyone else, noone permits them to switch teams. If they didn't buy new/switch teams that just means that the card aged well.

 

[happy medium]

7970 owners had the exact same choice as anyone else, noone permits them to switch teams. If they didn't buy new/switch teams that just means that the card aged well.

Well you are right they did switch teams , that's why Nvidia now has 78% of the gpu card market. OK it does make sense.

 

[Kenmitch]

Well you are right they did switch teams , that's why Nvidia now has 78% of the gpu card market. OK it does make sense.

How did you get that out of what he wrote? Please explain.

 

[DooKey]

Yet another fanboi flame war. You go girls.

 

[Silverforce11]

To be fair, enthusiast GPU depreciate the most in value the quickest, it's always been like this.

The sweetspot is mid-range. The problem for gamers though is that midrange has crept up to enthusiast price segments in recent generations.

 

[Mem]

DId I say something that wasn't true? I be glad to debate the facts.

I think 680 or 780 probably the worst.
AMD do better, the 290s are like duracell batteries, just keep going strong lol...

Now if you asked the worst card of all time,clue below.

 

[happy medium]

To be fair, enthusiast GPU depreciate the most in value the quickest, it's always been like this.

Hey man , I've been saying this all day. For once we are in the same corner. Its gonna snow.

 

[Ranulf]

EDIT:
Only focusing on the MSRP ignores that AMD cards ballooned in price in late 2013 and up to mid 2014. I remember when the Tahiti chips went on a roller coaster (I was watching them).
Launched at $550, dropped to $450 with games, then $400, then it was easy to find them for $250, then ballooned back to $300 with re-release as 280X, but then bitmining drove them well over $500 again only to fall back to <$200 when bubble burst.

The 290X sold for over $800 USD at it's peak. It was hard to support AMD cards during these times due to the gouging. A lot of AMD users were left in the cold or had to jump over to Nvidia.

You can bring up mining but Nvidia benefit from that as well. They kept the 760/770 price inflated. I got lucky with a 7870 on sale for $150 in Dec. 2013. There was no good nvidia equivalent even if I went up to $200 until the 970 came out. By March of 2014 I realized I should wait to upgrade my other system when the 900 cards came out.

 

[Techhog]

EDIT:
Only focusing on the MSRP ignores that AMD cards ballooned in price in late 2013 and up to mid 2014. I remember when the Tahiti chips went on a roller coaster (I was watching them).
Launched at $550, dropped to $450 with games, then $400, then it was easy to find them for $250, then ballooned back to $300 with re-release as 280X, but then bitmining drove them well over $500 again only to fall back to <$200 when bubble burst.

The 290X sold for over $800 USD at it's peak. It was hard to support AMD cards during these times due to the gouging. A lot of AMD users were left in the cold or had to jump over to Nvidia.

That's a good post, something tells me you wont get a honest answer though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

 

[Shmee]

Hey guys, just a reminder to keep it civil and non argumentative.

 

[Mondozei]

As someone who went from:

GTX 460>6950>7970>780 SLI>980 Ti

The 780 was easily the worst purchase of the lot. Especially in modern games the performance was especially lacking, The Witcher 3 essentially forced my hand into upgrading...

Yes, I know, I ended up with a 980 Ti even though nVidia screwed us Kepler owners over but AMD is hardly putting up a fight these days...

The GTX 980 Ti has done well in the DX12 benchmarks from what I've seen compared to the Fury, plus you get better DX11 performance so I'm guessing the 980 Ti will turn out to be a better buy than the GTX 780 was.

That's a weird statement, some cards aged reasonably well. In my opinion, the 660 and 670 for example.

Yes, I agree. Attacking the whole Keplier lineup doesn't make sense. The low-end 660/670 did indeed age well. And I also tussled with RS a little over the 680. I'd say that it wasn't doing as bad as he suggested since it was performing about the same as the midrange GPU of the next series, the 770. Which is what has normally/historically happened.

Overall, I think the 600-series did an okay job.