• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Why are GPUs so expensive?

Soldato
Joined
5 Jan 2009
Posts
4,759
I guess it depends on a lot of factors. Eyesight, viewing distance etc.

Even now 4k to me is a big step up in terms of visual improvement. I went from 1080p to 4k many years ago and was astounded by the difference and that was just with a £400 TN 28” 4k panel. I even used 4k dsr at the time and was still blown away.

I find my 55” 4k tv looks very very good. But close up it doesn’t look anywhere near as crystal clear as that 4k monitor did. I miss it to be honest.

Yeah I bought an x34a a couple of years ago to replace an aging 32" 1080p TV. The difference was phenomenal. I had to go back to the 1080p TV whilst the screen was RMA'd and it was awful to go back to. 3440x1440 is quite demanding (not 4K demanding) but it looks very nice!
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
Yeah I bought an x34a a couple of years ago to replace an aging 32" 1080p TV. The difference was phenomenal. I had to go back to the 1080p TV whilst the screen was RMA'd and it was awful to go back to. 3440x1440 is quite demanding (not 4K demanding) but it looks very nice!

How many people are pc desk gaming on a 32" 1080p screen?

Next to none.

It's like saying a 200" 1080p projector looks awful after using a 4k projector.

At those sizes then the difference is far more obvious.

Most people game on a 21-24" monitor. Biggest probably 27" for the masses. Enthusiasts are the ones using 30" or bigger.

Which is why 4K is usually overkill. I'd say 1440p is perfectly fine on a 27"-32" screen. No real need for 4K.
 

TNA

TNA

Caporegime
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
27,184
Location
Greater London
How many people are pc desk gaming on a 32" 1080p screen?

Next to none.

It's like saying a 200" 1080p projector looks awful after using a 4k projector.

At those sizes then the difference is far more obvious.

Most people game on a 21-24" monitor. Biggest probably 27" for the masses. Enthusiasts are the ones using 30" or bigger.

Which is why 4K is usually overkill. I'd say 1440p is perfectly fine on a 27"-32" screen. No real need for 4K.
For your eyes maybe ;) :p

In before your my eyes are 20/20 post :p
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jan 2006
Posts
3,020
How many people are pc desk gaming on a 32" 1080p screen?

Next to none.

It's like saying a 200" 1080p projector looks awful after using a 4k projector.

At those sizes then the difference is far more obvious.

Most people game on a 21-24" monitor. Biggest probably 27" for the masses. Enthusiasts are the ones using 30" or bigger.

Which is why 4K is usually overkill. I'd say 1440p is perfectly fine on a 27"-32" screen. No real need for 4K.

I did for a long time.

Use a combination of 40” 4K, 32” and 27” 1080p.
 
Associate
Joined
10 May 2008
Posts
285
Location
Sandhurst, United Kingdom
Just checked my account from another online tech retailer; January 2005, I bought an ATI X800XT 256MB for £380. Must have been off my rocker.

Pretty sure I replaced it with an X1950 sometime around 2006/7. If I recall correctly it was the most powerful AGP connector card you could get. Don't remember it costing as much as the X800XT did though.

In subsequent years I don't think the cards I bought were nearly as expensive - Though now I'm back to spending £400+.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Nov 2004
Posts
25,812
Location
On the road....
While people are talking about monitors.

I've always thought that triple monitors was best for gaming. So on a Battlefield type game, the centre screen is the main screen where your aiming, but the 2 monitors on the side are giving peripheral vision. I would honestly prefer 3 x 20" wide screens, then say a single 28" wide for instance.
Having gone from 3x24” monitors @5760x1080 to a 43” 4K tv with the exception of driving games which I don’t particularly play any more I actually much prefer the big 4K screen.

Apologies for iPotato picture quality :D

2yon8jU.jpg
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Jun 2012
Posts
10,803
When I was a teen, I was able to buy the top end card every year.
17 years later, I can't, yet I earn around 8* more than I did back then.
 
Associate
Joined
3 Feb 2009
Posts
2,246
I agree with a lot of the "Greedy nVidia/AMD" and "Idiots keep paying it" sentiment in this thread, along with the cryptocurrency mining inflation issues we saw: but I'll also note that graphics cards stay relevant a lot longer nowadays

10 years ago you had to upgrade your card almost every year to stay current - as Diagro points out, he used to be able to afford a top end card every year... but you felt like you had to buy a top end card every year. Even things like the 8800GT got out of date surprisingly fast. Whereas nowadays, you can run a card a lot longer: I'm on a 2-year-old 1080 (a card that was already a year or so old before I got one) and am yet to find a game that it's uncomfortable with: and I only upgraded it from the previous 1070 because that card died

I'll also note that fewer people seem to buy mid range GPUs - a few years ago cards like the GTX 260/460/660 were all very popular, whereas you don't see as many 1060/1660 (non-ti) versions around.

When kit lasts longer, people are happier to pay a bit more for it. Although I'll admit the current prices are getting a bit silly - a mid range GPU nowadays starts at £200-300 - my 460 cost £125, my HD7770 was £100, my brother's HD7870 and my GTX960 were both £150, my 970 was £200.. that all seems pretty sensible, then suddenly things shot up.
 
Associate
Joined
29 Aug 2013
Posts
1,175
I'll also note that fewer people seem to buy mid range GPUs - a few years ago cards like the GTX 260/460/660 were all very popular, whereas you don't see as many 1060/1660 (non-ti) versions around.
because they were decent 60 cards, the 2060 at £200-250 would be extremely popular. current 1660/1660ti etc all arent a big jump up from the 480/580/1060s or even 970s that people have had for years, so they have to spend £350-400~+ to get a decent performance upgrade
 
Back
Top Bottom