4 ms·
For me, 700$ are still high end. Time ago the high end was above 500$ and the price climbed during this time thanks to cryptomining. With 200/300 you could bu
by IloveHN84 8y ago
For me, 700$ are still high end.
Time ago the high end was above 500$ and the price climbed during this time thanks to cryptomining.
With 200/300 you could buy a modest graphic card that could last 3 years playing top titles. Now in that price range you can just keep up one year and then it's completely trash
- Synaesthesia 8y agoI think a RX580 or Nvidia 1060 is still perfectly great for modern gaming and can be picked up for $200 or less.
- holtalanm 8y agorx 580 8GB is good. the 4GB version is lagging behind a little -- VRAM spills into system RAM regularly. I assume the 1060 3GB has a similar problem. source: I have a 4GB and am currently saving up to upgrade. edit: also, the rx 580 4GB generally runs at a lower clock than the 8GB counterpart, which affects performance, as well.
- skohan 8y agoWhich titles are using more than 4GB these days?
- dragontamer 8y agohttps://techreport.com/r.x/2019_02_06_AMD_s_Radeon_VII_graphics_card_reviewed/memory.jpg https://techreport.com/r.x/2019_02_06_AMD_s_Radeon_VII_graph... Seems to be a VRAM-based calculation. There have been some youtubers looking into the "pop in" effect on GPUs with less VRAM. Basically, GPUs will render images at a lower texture level if the texture wasn't fitting in VRAM. So the failure case is pretty smooth these days and hard to notice. Basically, the mountain range in the background may only be a 2k texture, but may pop into a 4k texture after a bit. Because the 2k texture is a mipmap of the 4k texture, its actually hard to notice. So you can stretch lower VRAM Settings these days better than you'd expect. Another thing: just because VRam is allocated doesn't necessarily mean that the VRAM is being used. If you look at a wall in any video game, all the textures are going unused. Taken to the extreme: there are people and objects "behind" a lot of geometries that you'll never see in the game, but will be allocated to VRAM. As such, a game may allocate 9GB total, but not really need the last 2 or 3 GB. So even if a game reports 9GB or 10GB of usage, you may get by with a 8GB card. ------------- In any case, we're long past the 4GB of RAM mark. Practically speaking, games require 6GB at least and may break 8GB in the near future IMO. 8GB seems to be sufficient for now though (thanks to pop-in, VRAM overallocation, etc. etc.)
- holtalanm 8y agodestiny 2, for one, will run over 4GB VRAM on high settings. the new resident evil easily runs over 4GB VRAM on high settings. Apex Legends recommends an 8GB card because on max textures it will use more than 4GB. there are a lot of modern titles that will allocate/use more than 4GB VRAM.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- floatboth 8y agoYep, used 480/580 are an incredible deal right now. And perfectly adequate even for higher resolutions if you know what you're doing (disable MSAA, SSR, etc. depending on the game) and not always playing the latest most demanding overrated AAA stuff
- skohan 8y agoHeck I'm doing fine with an RX 380. I was expecting it to be a problem by now, but I still haven't found something I can't play if I'm willing to fiddle with the settings.
- criley2 8y agoI have a RX 390 and it is certainly an issue on most modern games. If I set a game to low or medium, I can probably maintain 30-40FPS. The idea of achieving a constant 60fps @ 1080p with this RX 390 on any graphically intensive game made in the last 3-4 years is a pipe dream though, even at low graphical settings. Monster Hunter World is an example of a title which was made for better hardware. On the other hand, Assassin's Creed Odyssey runs pretty well. I've just gotten used to decent graphics at 30-40fps, and I can eek out a mostly constant 60fps on games like Rocket League where it matters (with only some dips)
- skohan 8y agoI guess it depends on what your definition of "an issue" is. Mostly I don't measure FPS at all, and I will only adjust settings if the frame-rate is perceptibly choppy. So for example I recently installed Far Cry 5, and since it has an FPS counter in the corner by default I know it runs between 40-50 FPS at 1080p, with nice effects like volumetric lighting. For me that's fine.
- robdachshund 8y agoI don't know what you are doing wrong but my 280 is still going strong at 1080p. I can run at least medium on the newest stuff and usually get 60fps if not more.
- kyriakos 8y agoRecently bought an RX580 for 200 euro. Amazing value to price. For 1080p gaming i still haven't found any titles that make it feel slow. Essentially GPU prices always had an exponentially increasing price to performance ratio so the 1060 and RX580 are the current sweet spot.
- mrguyorama 8y agoI use an 8gb 580 to VR game, and it is phenomenal. Every game at at least 1.5 supersampling, maintain 90fps, even running hardware encoded video capture in the background.
- gameswithgo 8y ago>it's completely trash only if you are trying to get 140fps in battlegrounds or something. An nvidia 1060 will play almost anything just fine unless you are a competitive twitch gamer, or wanting to play at 4k.
- holtalanm 8y agonot really. imo.
- lm28469 8y ago> Time ago the high end was above 500$ In the meantime "gamers" went from 30fps/720p to 120fps/4k. Just like new entry cars are more expensive than 40 years ago, the baseline moved much higher. (security, speed, standard equipment).
- potta_coffee 8y agoDon't forget inflation.
- holtalanm 8y agoi'd settle for 60-70fps at 1080p on max settings.
- Glyptodon 8y agoI have an 8GB 580 and it seems likely to last me a good while. It replaced an HD 7770 which I was fine with for something like 5 years +/-. I think you can still spend sub- $500 and have it last ages easily. (Though I only do occasional, moderate, gaming and use Linux as my day-to-day desktop.)
- Abishek_Muthian 8y agoThis is why I prefer a console for gaming & also not having to put up with full version of Windows. In my country due to crypto craze, cost/performance of PC hardware for gaming is far worst than a console.
- rasz 8y agoIn 1999 high end was $300, thats what 3dfx and Nvidia charged for Voodoo3 3500 and GeForce 256 DDR. $200 got you perfectly capable middle range card, $100 was still enough for a decent 3D acceleration(voodoo2/NVIDIA Vanta, ok for contemporary Quake 2), and $30 a VGA outputting piece of turd. Today slowest ok cards start at $300 :(
- gambiting 8y ago>>Today slowest ok cards start at $300 :( I'm sorry, but that's absolute nonsense. You can get a brand new GTX1050 from newegg for $129: https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=gtx+1050&N=-1&isNodeId=1 https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&D... And that's an absolutely "ok" card. It will play every new game in 1080p and medium settings. I'd argue that you could go sub-$100 with a GT1030 and still play anything if you are willing to drop settings to low or resolution to 720p.
- rasz 8y agoLets check 1999 cards in Quake 2. Top of the line $300 Voodoo3/geforce 256 delivered 80-100 fps in 1024x768. Voodoo3 2000 was $100 in November 1999, and delivered solid 60 fps in 1024x768, used Voodoo2 could be had for $30 and still ran the game at 60fps, albeit only 800x600. Wolfenstein 2 is a two year old game at this point, and runs 35-60 on GTX 1050 with fast CPU, and more like constant 35/medium settings on weak one. You have to drop down to 1600x900 for >40fps. I guess GPU prices dropped from the last time I checked, RX 580/GTX 1060, both delivering playable framerates in current games, actually start around $200 now, so Ill give you that :)
- ricketycricket 8y agoAlso don't forget that $300 USD in 1999 would be equivalent to ~$450 in 2019 dollars.
- rasz 8y agoI look at it from slightly different, subjective perspective. Entry level CPUs. August 1998 Intel started selling legendary(to overclockers) $149 Celeron 300A. By 1999 entry level moved to $100 for ~300MHz Celerons/K6-2. In 2000 entry level moved to $69 433MHz Celeron, $75 533MHz Cyrix III, and $112 600Hz Duron. Top of the line CPUs were around $1K at the time. Todays entry level CPUs are still around $60 https://www.anandtech.com/show/13660/amd-athlon-200ge-vs-intel-pentium-gold-g5400-review https://www.anandtech.com/show/13660/amd-athlon-200ge-vs-int... Same goes for motherboard prices. Even RAM stayed in the same price bracket https://jcmit.net/memoryprice.htm https://jcmit.net/memoryprice.htm . 1999 computers came standard with ~$100 128MB of SDR, todays standard is ~$100 2x8GB of DDR4. Somehow everything got cheaper, except usable GPUs.
- cc439 8y ago>With 200/300 you could buy a modest graphic card that could last 3 years playing top titles. As someone who has fallen out of the arms race thanks to the perfectly serviceable GTX970 I bought just a hair over years ago for ~$300, I am frankly appalled by the lack of value in the GPU market today. At the time, that $300-350 card was decidedly high end in that it was the best 1080p gaming card on the market with the 980/980Ti only making sense for those playing st higher resolution. There still isn't anything on the market worth upgrading for (~30-50% faster in the same price bracket) 4 years later and that is not a good thing for the PC gaming market in the long term. The idea that one has to spend $300 to play games above medium settings at the resolutions found on midrange monitors is crazy to me. I got by with $100-175 cards (HD4850, HD5770, HD6950) for years before making the plunge into the high end for use in VR but I feel like cards that market is no longer viable in the same way those were.