2016's $170 GPU vs. 2019's $170 GPUs

[Stark]

Meh real men don't use a GPU at all ....

 

[toooooot]

Oh Steven, always on point. Always fun to read. Good f ing job man.

 

[toooooot]

The sub 200usd GPU landscape would look so much differently had the author choose games that are actually relevant. I would rather look at FPS results for 10 most played game on Steam such as:
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Dota 2
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS
MONSTER HUNTER: WORLD
Grand Theft Auto V
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege
Destiny 2
Team Fortress 2
Rust
Football Manager 2020

These games are what people are actually playing for hours and hours, not some flip flop like BFV, COD, Far Cry that EA and Activision **** out every year.
Now my reasoning behind this is that people are buying sub 200usd GPU usually for a single MMO game that they play for a long time. I pretty much only care about PUBG performance, the rest of AAA games I can play at 60fps just fine since the whole game is finished within 30hours usually.

Those unfortunately dont represent the current situation with the power in current graphical technologies. To test the games from that list, you d have to go back and buy even older video cards which were released in the years these games were released too.
I dont think it would be practical to test these specific cards with your game list.

 

[meric]

AMD's cards on 7nm perform close to Nvidia's 12nm cards and still require a bit more power. Imagine this GTX 1650 Super shrunk on 7nm, it would probably consume like half of RX 5500 XT and perform the same (even without any architectural enhancements). AMD needs some revolutionary touch on their GPU architecture, as soon as possible. I support AMD but this is the sad truth.

 

[theruck]

3x used RX 470s, never had that issue.

Sign In to AMD Community - AMD Community

community.amd.com

 

[Pajeroking]

After living 2015 2019 with a 150$ gtx 750ti (best card I ever had) now I replaced it with a 150$ rx580.
The fps increase is not scalable, I basicaly went from having 40 fps at low to having 60+ at high/ultra.
For me the 150-200 price range is best value for money at 1080p gaming.

Now that my 2nd gen i5, 8 years old is on its last hoorah, I will replace it in 1-2 years with a ryzen 5 or something, so I cwn happily game on a ~ 500-600$ system.

 

[EmJayCeeDee]

Certainly has some interesting parts and is an engaging read.

Is this going to be a series?

 

[toooooot]

After living 2015 2019 with a 150$ gtx 750ti (best card I ever had) now I replaced it with a 150$ rx580.
The fps increase is not scalable, I basicaly went from having 40 fps at low to having 60+ at high/ultra.
For me the 150-200 price range is best value for money at 1080p gaming.

Now that my 2nd gen i5, 8 years old is on its last hoorah, I will replace it in 1-2 years with a ryzen 5 or something, so I cwn happily game on a ~ 500-600$ system.

I got a backup system with 580. I tested it in an unfinished crap like Ark and Atlas. This card allows comfortable play with between mid to ultra settings. For 165 plus tax I was very happy to skip Nvidia's alternatives. The only thing I fear is my previous experience with ATI when 7970 quietly died rigth after the warranty ran out.

 

[CharmsD]

Editing, this was placed in the wrong thread.

Cut 8<

 

[Bishstyx]

So you're saying that if I simply look at the average gain, I will realize that a 30% increase in performance for the same price point, is not worth the upgrade? I should be ashamed for even considering it, I am a *****. What other commodity on this planet provides a true measurable 30% increase in value at the same price point every 3 years? Sure, you can enlist your defense mechanisms and counter with flaming me as someone who wants less for more. You will also have to ignore the facts in the article. Next time your employer gives you a raise, I doubt your output will increase an average of 30%. You will cost more than you did 3 years ago and still provide the same amount disappointment.

 

[CharmsD]

If we saw a 52% performance gain on average that would be pretty decent, 31% over 3 years is very meh though.

How much of 31% entered the marketplace in a single year, or within a few months? If the gains were across somewhat equal intervals for a thousand days...that's pathetic for a tech sector whose focus is raw SPEED.

The real numbers can be seen in the 10 game average graph and you're not looking at 50%+ gains there.

Moores law is dead. Tesla doesn't increase their cars speed 50% every three years, why should AMD or Nvidia...yeah that's a bad analogy!

Correction bud, AMD has nerfed the performance of the 5500 XT, not us! If you're suggesting people need to buy a $150 US+ X570 board to take advantage of the 5500 XT, well then I think this entry-level GPU has bigger issues.

Besides being totally unneeded it's gimped by using a half a slot that's twice as fast.

This is surreal.