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

toooooot

TS Evangelist
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

TS Maniac
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nms Barry

Pajeroking

TS Rookie
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.
 

toooooot

TS Evangelist
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

TS Enthusiast
TechSpot Elite
...No, if that happens (which it won't ever), then NVidia would win the price to performance, and overall performance, just as the 5700XT does at current real-life prices today.
I see a lot of 5700XT's at and over $500, this Gigabyte RTX 2070 Super was available at the time of this article, as far as I know this is not an everyday street cost (yet). Still, it's no work to locate RTX 2070 Super's at $400, MSI's Tri Frozr RTX 2070 8GB is $419 on the egg.



Newegg does a lot of price shifting, checking that card with the website and business sites their prices are the same...that's not always the case with them. Amazon, B&H and Best Buy show $500+ for RTX 2070 Supers.