When it comes to graphics cards, we go in-depth. Every year we test dozens of GPUs from Nvidia and AMD (hopefully soon from Intel, too) to see which ones are worth your money, and which are dead on arrival.
The Best GPUs, Mid-2022 Update: How Not To Overspend
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
I believe the word he was looking for was restraint, not constraint.
GTX 1060 and RX 570 are on the same level as the 1650 Super. They've nearly halved in price over the past few months on the used market as things began to calm down, and you usually find them cheaper than the 1650 S. They would still be my pick for best value cards, more than 5 years after their release. Either you're going to want to get them to save as much as possible, or you can afford to get a used 1660 TI or Super and get another step up in performance.
No-one needs to mention the GTX 1630.
No-one needs to mention the GTX 1630.
More info: GTX 1060 3gb and RX 570 4gb are more on par with GTX 1650. 1650 Super ~= GTX 1060 6gb.
Last edited:
I got tired of playing the Waiting Game and bought an MSI Ventus RTX 3080 12GB OC version when it got down to $810 (basically MSRP) in early May, and I haven't looked back. It destroys my old EVGA 1080 Ti, and I wanted to sell that card while it still had decent value. Not the flashiest (good) and I got a semi-golden sample. It oc'd quite nicely. Yes, they are even a little cheaper now ($730 after promos and rebates) but I don't really care. They could have gone back up for all I know.
Sure, I wanted to wait even longer for the 40xx series, but it looks like the launch dates on those may be pushed back more and more until the 3000 series overstock sells through. Could be 2023 before we see anything 40xx released. And based on the most current leaks, it looks like the 4080, for example, may only be about 20% faster than the current 3080. Not that impressive.
We'll likely never again see a single generational leap in performance like we did between the GTX 9xx series and the 10xx series (almost double in many titles) and I question the availability and pricing of the 40xx series at launch anyway.
If you are really itching to get a new graphics card, I say buy something now and enjoy it right away. As more rumors arise about the next gen, it looks like it isn't going to be nearly as mind-blowing as most people think. If it is, I'll sell my 3080 and buy one. That's the cost of having a hobby!
Still cheaper than owning a Harley - by a long shot.
Sure, I wanted to wait even longer for the 40xx series, but it looks like the launch dates on those may be pushed back more and more until the 3000 series overstock sells through. Could be 2023 before we see anything 40xx released. And based on the most current leaks, it looks like the 4080, for example, may only be about 20% faster than the current 3080. Not that impressive.
We'll likely never again see a single generational leap in performance like we did between the GTX 9xx series and the 10xx series (almost double in many titles) and I question the availability and pricing of the 40xx series at launch anyway.
If you are really itching to get a new graphics card, I say buy something now and enjoy it right away. As more rumors arise about the next gen, it looks like it isn't going to be nearly as mind-blowing as most people think. If it is, I'll sell my 3080 and buy one. That's the cost of having a hobby!
Still cheaper than owning a Harley - by a long shot.
MarcusNumb
Posts: 155 +301
Well I'm more than happy with my 3070ti even when I paid 880euros for it last year. I think now is a good time to buy 3080, 6800xt or even higher tier cause imo, waiting for 4xxx series with that new TDP requirement is just insane. If you are gaming at 1080 or 1440, even with high refresh rate monitor, a 3080 will be more than enough, and it consumes a good amount of power already.
Ryan Barrett
Posts: 56 +14
I think you could actually make some money if you get cards at MSRP or below when the 4000 series does come out. For the first few months at least when no one can get a 4080, prices will shoot back up, but like the 3080 release. It just won't last as long since it'll take less time to meet demand whenever the next gen does release.
My waiting game is strong as never before.
The bright future will arrive!
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
There' something here that, IMO, has been left out. I'll explain:
The article says:
"The Radeon 6700 XT delivers ~40% more performance than the 6600, supports the full PCIe x16 bandwidth, and increases the VRAM capacity to 12GB. You're effectively paying a 60% price premium for around 40% more performance, which is why we recommend to go with the RX 6600 if you can, especially with next-gen cards expected later this year."
I agree with this. Paying 60% more for only 40% more performance makes no sense. Having said that, you're almost always going to pay more money for less performance when you move up in any performance range, be it for a GPU or CPU. Despite this fact, the RX 6700 XT is still a recommended card. By that same logic, the RX 6600 XT, which gives a 15% performance boost for only a 19% price increase from $260-$310 (with the ASRock Challenger offering a $20MIR on top of that) is also a card that should be recommended but wasn't even mentioned.
If the $20MIR is taken into account, the price of the RX 6600 XT drops to $290 (taxes would of course affect this but that's too variable with too small of an impact to matter). This means that the RX 6600 XT would only be ~12% more expensive for a 15% performance boost. As a result, the RX 6600 XT is not only more powerful than the RX 6600, but a better value as well, something rare when a card is higher up the tier chart.
Thus, I think that the RX 6600 XT shouldn't have been omitted from this article but should've been offered as an option for the entry-level.
The article says:
"The Radeon 6700 XT delivers ~40% more performance than the 6600, supports the full PCIe x16 bandwidth, and increases the VRAM capacity to 12GB. You're effectively paying a 60% price premium for around 40% more performance, which is why we recommend to go with the RX 6600 if you can, especially with next-gen cards expected later this year."
I agree with this. Paying 60% more for only 40% more performance makes no sense. Having said that, you're almost always going to pay more money for less performance when you move up in any performance range, be it for a GPU or CPU. Despite this fact, the RX 6700 XT is still a recommended card. By that same logic, the RX 6600 XT, which gives a 15% performance boost for only a 19% price increase from $260-$310 (with the ASRock Challenger offering a $20MIR on top of that) is also a card that should be recommended but wasn't even mentioned.
If the $20MIR is taken into account, the price of the RX 6600 XT drops to $290 (taxes would of course affect this but that's too variable with too small of an impact to matter). This means that the RX 6600 XT would only be ~12% more expensive for a 15% performance boost. As a result, the RX 6600 XT is not only more powerful than the RX 6600, but a better value as well, something rare when a card is higher up the tier chart.
Thus, I think that the RX 6600 XT shouldn't have been omitted from this article but should've been offered as an option for the entry-level.
Last edited:
Yes! A GPU crash is MUCH safer than a Harley crash. 
PEnnn
Posts: 1,285 +1,854
I bought my 1660 Super for $200 (with a CC promotion on Amazon) 2.5 years ago.
As I watched rhe mid & high end GPUs market explode, I knew it was the best GPU decision I've ever made! It runs quiet, cool and plays almost everything on High!
No need to upgrade till the dust settles on the new releases from AMD and nVidia, maybe in 18 months or so. Even then, I am not so sure I should!
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
Whatever works for you is always the correct answer.
1660 is probably the king of Steam. Or at least it used to be.
Good card as a bare minimum for playing most games.
Actually it makes perfect sense to me. Rarely do you get more for less. You almost always pay a premium for absolute performance. Sometimes the ratios are better but usually you don't get a straight line cost model, 20% more performance for 20% more dollars. Think cars, sure, that Ferrari will go 200 mph. My car will go 100, but cost 1/3 what a Ferrari cost (fake example FYI). That's 100% performance for 300% cost.
Well, I wasn't happy with the built in Intel UHD 730 so I bought a brand new Zotac GTX 1650 4 GB single fan GPU for only $169. It has a 75 watt TDP and works great with only PCI-e bus power. I just wanted a better picture (couldn't even watch my X-Box movies because it wasn't compatible for some reason). So, I wasn't willing to go double my GPU price for no reason (no FPS games and not many games period with XBox series S playing most games better. It is, for the most part, an HTPC that wasn't Windows 11 compatible and figured I'd get ahead of the curve with 11 pre-installed. Not impressed with 11 (would rather stick with 10) but no willing to downgrade now that I've gotten it tweaked to mostly operate like Windows 10.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Senua's Saga: Hellblade II system requirements revealed, 70GB of storage space required- Squid Surprise replied
-
Intel CPUs Are Crashing and It's Intel's Fault: Intel Baseline Profile Benchmark- erickmendes replied
-
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Revisit: Is this the GOAT?- Arbie replied
