Would you consider a 100 USD video card to be low end?

[tential]

So we're clear, I wanted to make sure I wasn't off base on this. In a thread on the TW3 Elder Blood trailer on reddit, there's an individual insisting that 100 dollar video cards are not low end, emphatically insisting. I'm trying to set him straight.

I would not consider PC gaming at a $100 video card. $150 minimum. That takes you to the R9 270 which you can see on the graph there gets you to above 30 FPS.
At less than $100, you either need a GPU for a task (like video playback where your integrated GPU doesn't handle it. In my case, my Core2Duo laptop's 9800M GTS doesn't support hardware acceleration of youtube 1080p/60fps video playback. Can't upgrade it though since it's a laptop). Or are playing a low threshold graphics game like Dota2/LoL or something.

Otherwise, I'd spend $150. If you can't wait til the next paycheck to upgrade from $100 to a $150 videocard, chances are PC Gaming really isn't for you. I'd stick to console if I was in that position.

 

[cbn]

I would not consider PC gaming at a $100 video card. $150 minimum. That takes you to the R9 270 which you can see on the graph there gets you to above 30 FPS.

Are you referring to this graph below?

Because if you are realize that is at ultra preset/MSAA x2.....and I'll bet quite a bit of FPS can be gained just be lowering detail settings somewhat.

P.S. As has been quoted earlier in this thread R9 270s have dropped to as low as $100 AR in the very recent past (current pricing starts at $119.99 AR).

 

[tential]

Are you referring to this graph below?

Because if you are realize that is at ultra preset/MSAA x2.....and I'll bet quite a bit of FPS can be gained just be lowering detail settings somewhat.



P.S. As has been quoted earlier in this thread R9 270s have dropped to as low as $100 AR in the very recent past (current pricing starts at $119.99 AR).

Generic price point follow by the "R9 270". No need to nitpick it.

 

[cbn]

Generic price point follow by the "R9 270". No need to nitpick it.

The point of that post wasn't so much about the price (that was merely an afterthought), it was about potential performance gain that could be had just by lowering preset down from "ultra".

IMO a lot of games still look quite good at lower presets provided native resolution is still used.

And I while I would probably even go on say higher end video cards are a better value than lower end video cards (going by FPS charts at X detail preset) in some cases I have to question if the increase in quality preset is really worth the money.

Certainly if the game offers good gameplay, playing at medium preset rather than ultra will not detract from that. (At least the video card gets the person playing the game and enjoying the experience)

 

[IEC]

Unless on a strict budget, I think $200 is the better mark to aim for bang for the buck.

You can go for high-end gaming with the R290 @ $200 or less used. If you don't care for highest/high settings or high resolutions then you can opt for the cheaper cards, but right now it's a great time to pick up last year's almost flagship card for a good price.

 

[Bateluer]

I'm not sure if he's trolling me or not. He just cited THG's Video Card 2014 guide as a source . . . which lists a Geforce GT 730 as an entry level card, 70 dollars. I guess its technically entry level . . . but you'd be better off saving your money. From his own words, '130 for midrange is absurd.'

Not sure if I can blame the far too long 7th gen console cycle for this ignorance or if its just him.

 

[tential]

The point of that post wasn't so much about the price (that was merely an afterthought), it was about potential performance gain that could be had just by lowering preset down from "ultra".

IMO a lot of games still look quite good at lower presets provided native resolution is still used.

And I while I would probably even go on say higher end video cards are a better value than lower end video cards (going by FPS charts at X detail preset) in some cases I have to question if the increase in quality preset is really worth the money.

Certainly if the game offers good gameplay, playing at medium preset rather than ultra will not detract from that. (At least the video card gets the person playing the game and enjoying the experience)

I see what you mean. I still wouldn't change from $150/R9 270 though as my lowest "entry level" for those serous on PC gaming.

I agree about the preset though, I played Crysis 3 on Medium Preset and Bioshock Infinte on medium Preset (my cousin actually, I didn't want to fiddle with settings as he just wanted to see the games and I had just built this PC) and they both looked great on my 70 inch HDTV. Sometimes, we forget there are other presets below Ultra =D.

 

[tential]

I'm not sure if he's trolling me or not. He just cited THG's Video Card 2014 guide as a source . . . which lists a Geforce GT 730 as an entry level card, 70 dollars. I guess its technically entry level . . . but you'd be better off saving your money. From his own words, '130 for midrange is absurd.'

Not sure if I can blame the far too long 7th gen console cycle for this ignorance or if its just him.

Good, let him get a GTX 730 for The Witcher 3....
See how much fun he has.

 

[escrow4]

For a $100 might as well save up some more and get a console. Playing on medium is console level anyway. If you want real PC settings you'll want more than a $100.

 

[cbn]

For a $100 might as well save up some more and get a console.

That would not be a good universal recommendation.

Re:

1. Some AAA games are only available on PC (examples: Sid Meier's Civilization Series, The Total War Series games, etc)
2. There are indie titles on PC not available on console.

This not mention all the other advantages a PC has over console.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think a 100.00 card is sufficient for PC gaming. No offense meant, but a lot of people lately seem to put a lot of emphasis on graphics, while I tend to focus more on gameplay. I game on an i5 and a HD7770. There are plenty of games that I can play at 1080p medium to high. Even DA:I I can play at medium. Would I like to be able to crank the settings? Of course, but the game looks decent, and the core gameplay is the same as if I was playing at ultra. I bought the card a couple of years ago and have been very satisfied with it. If I were buying a card now I would try to get something with more vram, but there is no game that I am willing to pay for a new gpu in order to be able to play at higher settings.

I definitely prefer my PC with a low end graphics card to a console because of kb/mouse controls, a wider variety of games, and cheap games on steam. If someone demands 60FPS minimum and ultra settings at 1080 or higher, that is fine, but not everyone is so demanding.

In regards to the OP, I would consider a hundred dollar card low end for gaming, but not for general use like multi monitor use and video playback, although most igps can do that pretty well these days.

 

[SPBHM]

For a $100 might as well save up some more and get a console. Playing on medium is console level anyway. If you want real PC settings you'll want more than a $100.

a lot of people play PC exclusives, and there are other advantages (like cost, when you consider games and subscriptions, also if you use PC for other things), mods...

 

[Bubbleawsome]

See my sig. :awe:
The 260x isn't bad. I had it's little brother the 7770 for a while and it pushed mediums and lows at 1280x1024 at ~80 fps. The 7790/260x could probably manage 1080p at mediums/lows. Honestly not bad for ~$100.