The Best Graphics Cards 2016: TechSpot's top picks for every budget

Top Picks For EVERY Budget: "...costs just $400.."; "...who can complain with the current $400 asking price?"; "as little as $1400!'; etc. I only see prices here that are the equivalent to the prices that MOST people pay for their entire PC's! The problem with this story is that the description far from meets anyone's definition of "every budget". With the average wage floating around $26K a year, these prices are luxury expenses that most average families just cannot afford. We are not all upper middle, nor upper crust, wage home page earners, so the articles title is just about as misleading as you could possibly get. If you ever get around to writing an article based on the home page teaser that leads here, let the rest of us average wage earners know. THAT would be a helpful article!
 
I think we're done with ad hominem remarks in this thread. Make your points without personal comments please. Thank you.
 
Nvidia's Kepler cards suddenly got much slower after Maxwell release. Have not seen similar on AMD.

What evidence do you have that Kepler ever got slower? The 680 is still running games the same as it did at launch. Nvidia's cards haven't ever gotten slower.

However AMD's cards started performing BETTER once games needed more bandwidth, Vram, and shades. Not to mention AMD massively overhauled their drivers.
 
You do know that 1060 3GB is not the same as 1060 6GB in terms of performance and spec while rx 480 4gb has the same exact spec as rx 480 8gb except for the memory. There are times where 1060 3gb dips below to rx 470/ 970 performance.
And had you read the article, you'd know they took that into account... The 3GB still outperforms the AMD MOST of the time, and costs less/same still... As for whether the future will make 3GB not as reliable - we won't really know until the future arrives... But the article said they didn't think it was likely.
Not if you look at frame times. The GTX 1060 3GB suffers a lot more from stuttering than even the RX 470 4GB. Check ComputerBase's RAM test.
 
Not if you look at frame times. The GTX 1060 3GB suffers a lot more from stuttering than even the RX 470 4GB. Check ComputerBase's RAM test.
Again.... Had you read the article, you'd know that Steve took this into account when writing his article. The 3gb 1060 is still 10% better on average and costs the same... It's a no-brainer
 
Top Picks For EVERY Budget: "...costs just $400.."; "...who can complain with the current $400 asking price?"; "as little as $1400!'; etc. I only see prices here that are the equivalent to the prices that MOST people pay for their entire PC's! The problem with this story is that the description far from meets anyone's definition of "every budget". With the average wage floating around $26K a year, these prices are luxury expenses that most average families just cannot afford. We are not all upper middle, nor upper crust, wage home page earners, so the articles title is just about as misleading as you could possibly get. If you ever get around to writing an article based on the home page teaser that leads here, let the rest of us average wage earners know. THAT would be a helpful article!
New cards cost around $150 if they are discrete - minimum.... And Steve included that category in his article.... If you can't afford one, maybe you shouldn't be reading this?
 
Not even a mention of the large price premium for a G-sync monitor making the GTX 1060 potentially poor value for money for anyone buying a screen in the life of the card?
Not even a mention of the large price premium for a G-sync monitor making the GTX 1060 potentially poor value for money for anyone buying a screen in the life of the card?
When did a G-sync monitor become necessary to have a smooth, stutter and tear-free gaming experience? It's a gimmick for those who don't know how to tweak their system.
 
While on vacation I've entered computer shops in Barcelona and London and new cards from AMD were nowhere to be found.There is such a big demand so nobody even expects prices to be at MSRP level, so Steven is right about price brackets. It's true that GTX 1080 has no competition, but in my opinion GTX 1060 3GB does not even compare to RX470 8GB and besides power consumption, R9 Fury Nano is a way better option than GTX 1070 mini and the future will show that.After some reading, my conclusion is that the wave of Nvidia supporting articles was triggered by the fact that Nvidia is losing market share to AMD.
"Nvidia is losing market share to AMD"

Well you'd better let Steam know about this, because according to their hardware survey, the percentage of Nvidia/AMD users was 51.4%/28.5% on 03/2015 and 57.57%/24.44% on 08/2016.

Of course, Steam only has 125 million users, so I'm sure AMD fanboys will brush off this little fact.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
 
Buy a used 980 Ti.

Overclock it.

Same or better than 1080 performance.

Still, 1080 removes the hassle and outputs far less heat and consumes less power for what it provides, so.. your choice. But the 1080 Ti is coming out in a few months.. 1080 buyers are going to be upset. I'm returning mine.
 
WOW,

you hacks actually did it - you picked the 3GB 1050Ti over the 8GB RX 480 that is allready beating even the 1060 in next gen APIs.
Kudos, ive put you in the same category as TomsHardware now.

Pffffffffff
 
WOW,

you hacks actually did it - you picked the 3GB 1050Ti over the 8GB RX 480 that is allready beating even the 1060 in next gen APIs.
Kudos, ive put you in the same category as TomsHardware now.

Pffffffffff
So you didn't read the article then? The RX480 8GB is considerably more expensive to the point it's not really in the same price bracket, Hence why they went with the 1060 3GB.
 
Top Picks For EVERY Budget: "...costs just $400.."; "...who can complain with the current $400 asking price?"; "as little as $1400!'; etc. I only see prices here that are the equivalent to the prices that MOST people pay for their entire PC's! The problem with this story is that the description far from meets anyone's definition of "every budget". With the average wage floating around $26K a year, these prices are luxury expenses that most average families just cannot afford. We are not all upper middle, nor upper crust, wage home page earners, so the articles title is just about as misleading as you could possibly get. If you ever get around to writing an article based on the home page teaser that leads here, let the rest of us average wage earners know. THAT would be a helpful article!
Are you commenting on the right article? Because THIS article's title is "The Best Graphics Cards".

The word "budget" does not mean "cheap", it means a percentage of your income that you set aside for a purchase. If you make $20K and your budget is $200, then the $80K equivalent is $800. The article does mention the AMD RX 460 for $140... if that still seems expensive to you then I'd suggest you find another hobby that doesn't involve high performance electronics.
 
Way to go guys. We reached page 3 as of now because some are not satisfied that most of the cards recommended as of prices and availability are nvidia.

So to summarize everything Hardreset's comments. Here it is. Please dont argue. This is based from availability, prices, driver support, futureproofing, power, heat, dx11, dx 12, architecture.

The Best Graphics Cards 2016: Hardreset's top picks for every budget

Best Overall Graphics Card:
RX 480 8GB

Best Performance For Your Money
RX 480 8GB

Best Mainstream GPU
RX 480 4/8GB

Best Budget
RX 480 4/8GB

Best HTPC/Compact Card
RX 480 4/8Gb

Best Mobile GPU(s)
RX 480 4/8Gb

See you guys later :)
Love it! But you forgot two categories:

Best Graphics Card For Exclusively DOOM Players

RX 480 4/8Gb

Best Supercomputer Graphics Card

Rx 480 4/8Gb
 
Buy a used 980 Ti.

Overclock it.

Same or better than 1080 performance.

Still, 1080 removes the hassle and outputs far less heat and consumes less power for what it provides, so.. your choice. But the 1080 Ti is coming out in a few months.. 1080 buyers are going to be upset. I'm returning mine.
OC'd 980 Ti as good as a 1080? NO- this is a myth by jealous 980 Ti owners. Here's a very legit and thorough test of them by overclockersclub, both overclocked (yes, the 1080 oc's too).

They tested ten different games (one was Unigine Heaven 4.0) at 1080p/1440p/2160 for a total of 30 benchmarks. The average fps for all 30 tests:

GTX 1080 OC = 92fps
GTX 980 Ti OC = 75fps

A 17 fps average lead is hardly the "same or better performance", and at 1440p the GTX 1080 was often ahead by 20+ fps (see Middle Earth: SOM, Battlefield 4, Hitman, T.C. The Division).

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_geforcegtx_1080_overclocking/2.htm
 
You have got to be kidding me lol.


The 480 is just as strong as the 1060 with more VRAM for less money. But honestly, the Fury Nitro's selling for $300 are the real price/perf kings right now.
"The 480 is just as strong as the 1060"

Not really. It's better at Vulkan (that's 4 games) and SOME DX 12 titles, but according to pcgamer's review, on average over 16 titles the 1060 averages 82.7 fps at 1080p while the 480 comes in at 74.7. The biggest victory for the RX 480 was 11 fps, while in one game the 1060 won by 40 fps.

The 1060 is clearly the faster card. The icing on the cake is that it also oc's better, is cooler and quieter, and is more efficient. The RX 480's price was supposed to be its big selling point, but a quick check on Newegg shows the 1060 6Gb starting at $249 and the cheapest RX 480 8Gb at $259 (both in stock). The extra 2Gb of Vram is a marketing gimmick, as the 480 isn't powerful enough to utilize it anyway.
 
I didn't hijack anything. It's not my fault Nvidia fanboys don't like anything that is not promoting Nvidia.

Except that this article has given Nvidia the recommendation for every category except budget - and that's only because Nvidia's 1050 isn't out yet...



So benchmarks are not proving anything? That's OK for me but keep it that way.

They do... but as I said, only benchmarks using the SAME card on the SAME title(s) with DIFFERENT drivers will actually prove if a card has "gotten" slower... You'd think that would be common sense...

No, we don't need that kind of test. Try to explain why GTX 780 3GB is slower on some games than GTX 960 2GB? Difference on raw processing power is huge.

Because the 960 is a newer card, with newer technology in it... so newer titles will leverage newer cards better... duh... let's try the same 2 cards on an older title and see who wins... duh... the 780...
What we DO know is they BOTH cream the equivalent AMD card....


AMD is way to go as AMD represents future and Nvidia past. Article is made by Nvidia biased writer, that has been proven many times. Only Nv*****s diagree with that fact.

At the rate AMD is going, they might not have much of a future - they can't compete with Nvidia with their GPUs nor can they compete with Intel on the CPU side.... Don't get me wrong, I WANT them to succeed, as competition can only be good - but alas, unlike you, I look at reality and it doesn't look so bright for AMD.

And sorry HardReset, the only people who believe your "fact" are AMD fanboys who keep losing in the present, and hold out for a win in the future - which doesn't have to be proven...

AMD is failing? What a joke.
They are powering all three console mfg's into the future and their GPU card range is doing just fine.
AMD's GPU and CPU Market Share Reported to Fall Further in Q1-
http://wccftech.com/amd-cpu-gpu-market-share-q1-2016/
 
Those links all lead to forums like this, so they don't carry any weight. If you have a link to a respected and legit tech site, like TECHSPOT, tom's hw or anandtech on the matter (NOT a forum), with benchmarks, I'll read it. Otherwise, it's just a conspiracy theory.

I'm replaying Crysis 3 on the same rig I had four years ago with GTX 670 SLI and the performance is as good if not slightly better due to newer drivers. In fact, I'm replaying a lot of games that I played four years ago and there has been no drop in performance whatsoever. That's why I still haven't felt a need to upgrade other than I want a new toy, and might move to 4k in the near future.
 
I will take an AMD over nvidia anyday. Call me a fanboy but I would like another two graphic card makers in the mix
 
I will take an AMD over nvidia anyday. Call me a fanboy but I would like another two graphic card makers in the mix
Well, unless you're paying $150, you're getting a bad deal.... if you don't like facts, I guess this article isn't for you...

But yes, it would be great if there were a bunch of GPU (and CPU while we're at it) manufacturers, and they all churned out great products.... alas, the real world isn't as sunny a place :(
 
WOW,

you hacks actually did it - you picked the 3GB 1050Ti over the 8GB RX 480 that is allready beating even the 1060 in next gen APIs.
Kudos, ive put you in the same category as TomsHardware now.

Pffffffffff

Thank you, we feel honored to be compared to Toms Hardware.
 
Well, unless you're paying $150, you're getting a bad deal.... if you don't like facts, I guess this article isn't for you...

But yes, it would be great if there were a bunch of GPU (and CPU while we're at it) manufacturers, and they all churned out great products.... alas, the real world isn't as sunny a place :(

Maybe not where you live. I make my own sun, Bubba
 
That wasn't the point of the article...
The point of the article is best choice for every budget. The choice of a 4GB card vs a 3GB card, where one has spikes and the other doesn't, the one that doesn't is the better choice. That means RX 470> GTX 1060 3GB.

It has already all been laid out, in the article, you clicked on, titled "The Best Graphics Cards 2016: TechSpot's top picks for every budget".
The GTX 1060 3GB is not a good choice period.

Cool Story Bro, Comparing a more expensive Graphics Card to a cheaper Card and you've come to the conclusion the more expensive one is better. Would you look at that...
Red herring. That was not the point. The point is that the 3GB is memory limited even at high settings and causes spikes. The 4GB on the RX470/RX480 does not have this issue, and only starts having it to lesser extent and extremely demanding settings like Mirror's Edge Hyper settings.

I'm guessing you meant RX 480 not 470 since the article you linked to was exclusively about the 480? So you've again come to the conclusion the more expensive RX480 is slightly better than the 1060 3GB...
Shows how much you paid attention to the article. Oh that's right. You didn't. The RX470 is also tested in Deus Ex MD. Here;

23-630.1473844708.png


Then look at the GTX 1060 3GB:
17-630.1473681325.png


Once again you people have been caught to be blatant liars. And people like you are the ones getting a bunch of likes. Disgusting.
I mean... Come on... Do I need to repeat myself again?
You only repeat yourself because you have nothing new to add to the table. All irrelevant repetitions that bypass the point of the issue.

I did Enjoy thank you, It backed up the Article exactly how Steve put it. Once the RX480 drops in price, It'll take the Throne of "Best Budget GPU" but until then, the 1060 3GB is the better bang for buck.
The RX 470 4GB is a better choice than the GTX 1060 3GB. I can understand going for the GTX 1060 6GB over any RX 470 or RX 480, but the GTX 1060 3GB is not a card anyone should buy. But whatever.

Edit: I just got some time to look over your link properly. What that actually display's is that the RX480 is at it's limit already since doubling the memory makes almost no difference at all. All those users in comment sections complaining "4GB of VRAM isn't enough" should take a look at your link, they'll soon realize that actually, the RX480 is too weak to use anymore.
Ooooh. And the GTX 1060 3GB is not at its limit? LOL you people are hilarious.... Even in the face of hard evidence you make up nonsense to justify supporting a card with a green brand on it. Only you can spin VRAM not being a limit to a GPU as a bad thing... Baffling...
 
Last edited:
The point of the article is best choice for every budget. The choice of a 4GB card vs a 3GB card, where one has spikes and the other doesn't, the one that doesn't is the better choice. That means RX 470> GTX 1060 3GB.

The GTX 1060 3GB is not a good choice period.
Yes, but the RX480 is considerably more expensive, what part of the meaning of the word "Budget" are you not fully understanding? The RX480 costs more and is not in the price category of the 1060 3GB.

If you want to play that game, the 1060 6GB is the same price as the RX480 and it wipes the floor with it...

Shows how much you paid attention to the article. Oh that's right. You didn't. The RX470 is also tested in Deus Ex MD.
Ah, you are correct, I missed that, my bad. I am at work to be fair, just a little bored and wasn't fully concentrating.

Once again you people have been caught to be blatant liars. And people like you are the ones getting a bunch of likes. Disgusting.
I haven't lied at all:

Is the RX480 more expensive than the 1060 3GB = Yes
Is the 1060 3GB about as good or better as a RX470 = Yes
Does the 1060 3GB use less power than a RX470 = Yes

None of that is a lie. What's "disgusting" is your inability to read a chart...

You only repeat yourself because you have nothing new to add to the table. All irrelevant repetitions that bypass the point of the issue.
I don't have anything new to add because there is nothing new to add. I had to repeat myself because of your inability to respond with anything relevant.

The RX 470 4GB is a better choice than the GTX 1060 3GB. I can understand going for the GTX 1060 6GB over any RX 470 or RX 480, but the GTX 1060 3GB is not a card anyone should buy. But whatever.
But it's not, the 1060 3GB beats the RX470 in pretty much all reviews I can could bother to Google. It even trades blows with the RX480 in certain games.

Ooooh. And the GTX 1060 3GB is not at its limit? LOL you people are hilarious....
I never said it wasn't? Let me check... Nope, definitely didn't say that...

Even in the face of hard evidence you make up nonsense to justify supporting a card with a green brand on it.
How upset would you be right now if I was to tell you what GPU I was running a couple of years ago?

Only you can spin VRAM not being a limit to a GPU as a bad thing... Baffling...
I didn't spin it as a bad thing, I was explaining to all those users on forums such as these that spout nonsense such as "IT DOESN'T HAVE MOAR VRAM! IT MUST BE CRAP!" that you have single handedly linked them all to a performance benchmark that proves it's complete rubbish and they might as well save the money and get the 4GB model. I guess AMD has the same train of thought as Nvidia had with it's older mobile GPU's. Just add more VRAM because higher number is better, right?
 
Hard reset, why do you have so much trouble accepting that Nvidias 1060 is a better value card than the AMD's RX480? Do you own shares in AMD or something?
 
Back