Are £150-200 GFX cards not a thing anymore then?

[Panos]

That is a crock of something.

NVidia has plenty of competitive cards, the 1060, 1660, 1660ti,2060, 2060s, 2070s.
Some are slightly slower than the AMD counterparts and some faster, but to say that NVidia has no competitive cards would be like me saying AMD has nothing competitive against NVidia citing the RTX Titan, which absolutely slaughters anything AMD has to offer. Both comments would be just plain wrong.

Sorry but you have to look at the prices also. You cannot compare 2060S with 5700XT when both are at the same price point. The 5700XT is seal clubbing the 2060S.
Neither the more expensive 1660Ti against the cheaper Vega 56, the later is faster. Same applies to 1660 against the 580/590s.
And the 570 is alone there, only a lunatic would buy something from Nvidia at that price point.

 

[Zernath]

Have you heard of inflation?

I mean I'd like to pay the same price for my car that I did 12 years ago but that isn't going to happen either

The most expensive GPU in the mid 2000s, still works out significantly cheaper than today's flagship cards, even with inflation taken into account. ******** excuse is ********.

 

[McPhee]

The most expensive GPU in the mid 2000s, still works out significantly cheaper than today's flagship cards, even with inflation taken into account. ******** excuse is ********.

Yeah, single cards were much cheaper. But there are reasons for that.

The dollar was trading against the pound at $1.80 to $2, making UK prices really cheap. You also didn't have cards of the calibur of the 2080 Ti back in the mid-2000s. Instead, you had SLi and Crossfire delivering the top-end.

Two 7800GTXs in SLi would have set you back around £800. In the US, it was $600 each plus tax. That's equivalent to £1700 for the pair today.

It can't be denied that there's been some price gouging going on in recent years, enabled by the lack of competition in the market and buoyed by the mining boom. But it isn't as bad as the £700 difference in launch price between a 7800 GTX and RTX 2080 Ti suggests. Inflation, exchange rates, and the lower relative performance of mid-2000s flagship cards all contribute to the increase.

 

[jaybee]

The latest AMD cards recommended above....I'm assuming both the below systems would bottleneck the cards majorly.

Socket 775 Intel Q9450 overclocked 16gb DDR3 (system from 2009 ish)
Socket 1150 Intel G3258 Pentium K overclocked 8gb DDR3 (system from 2014 ish)

 

[McPhee]

The latest AMD cards recommended above....I'm assuming both the below systems would bottleneck the cards majorly.

Socket 775 Intel Q9450 overclocked 16gb DDR3 (system from 2009 ish)
Socket 1150 Intel G3258 Pentium K overclocked 8gb DDR3 (system from 2014 ish)

Probably.

I noticed a huge difference moving from an i5 2400 and RX 570 to a Ryzen 2600 (same GPU). Average frames increase a fair bit (15-20 fps), but the biggest difference was 1% and 0.1% lows. With the 2400, the frame rate was all over the place. With the 2600, it's quite consistent.

With the 2400 being a good chunk faster than both of the CPUs you mention, I suspect you will have a bit of a problem.

 

[ExoMale]

8gb Rx 570 no question, I had one before my 1060 and it was an awesome card.

 

[Zernath]

Yeah, single cards were much cheaper. But there are reasons for that.

The dollar was trading against the pound at $1.80 to $2, making UK prices really cheap. You also didn't have cards of the calibur of the 2080 Ti back in the mid-2000s. Instead, you had SLi and Crossfire delivering the top-end.

Two 7800GTXs in SLi would have set you back around £800. In the US, it was $600 each plus tax. That's equivalent to £1700 for the pair today.

It can't be denied that there's been some price gouging going on in recent years, enabled by the lack of competition in the market and buoyed by the mining boom. But it isn't as bad as the £700 difference in launch price between a 7800 GTX and RTX 2080 Ti suggests. Inflation, exchange rates, and the lower relative performance of mid-2000s flagship cards all contribute to the increase.

I had two GeForce 9800 GX2s in SLI back in the day. They were under £450 each (just over £580 in 2018), and were dual GPU cards. So not even a grand for what was - at the time - a stupidly powerful set-up.

Some price gouging is a pretty big understatement!

 

[McPhee]

I had two GeForce 9800 GX2s in SLI back in the day. They were under £450 each (just over £580 in 2018), and were dual GPU cards. So not even a grand for what was - at the time - a stupidly powerful set-up.

Some price gouging is a pretty big understatement!

The pricing was in line with US prices. And this is still the case today.

In March 2008, a GX2 would have set you back $600 + sales tax. £1 bought $2. VAT was 17.5%. And OCUK sold their own brand GX2 for £352.

$600 in 2008 is the equivalent of $720 today. That's 2080 Super pricing. Converted to Sterling at the current rate, that's £600 + VAT (so £720). What card can you buy with £720?... the 2080 Super!

Now, I'm not arguing that prices haven't risen. They quite clearly have; it would be tough to argue that a 2080 Super is the 2019 equivalent of the 9800 GX2. But are price rises really surprising, given what has happened in the market over the past few years? Nvidia are dominant in the market, and the mining boom has shown them that consumers will tolerate higher pricing. It sucks. But hopefully renewed competition from AMD and Intel forces prices back down.

 

[TALON1973]

I’ve got an old amd Msi r9 270x 4gb card .....

Been looking at a

Asus PH-GTX1660-O6G

Is that a nice boost ? Looking at small factor and new. On a 4k tv

 

[Gray2233]

I’ve got an old amd r9 270x 4gb card .....

Been looking at a

Asus PH-GTX1660-O6G

Is that a nice boost ? Looking at small factor and new

If you need a small form factor you'll probably struggle to do better than a 1660 in honesty, but they're poorly priced given what they offer. If you think you can fit in a AMD 580 you'll save £40-50 and have near on par performance, and for an extra £50 you could grab a Vega 56.

 

[TALON1973]

If you need a small form factor you'll probably struggle to do better than a 1660 in honesty, but they're poorly priced given what they offer. If you think you can fit in a AMD 580 you'll save £40-50 and have near on par performance, and for an extra £50 you could grab a Vega 56.

Not looked on specs of my old 270x length wise. It’s not exactly tiny even back in the day.

 

[Gray2233]

Not looked on specs of my old 270x length wise. It’s not exactly tiny even back in the day.

It's worth checking mate if that's what you're replacing.

Nvidia is pretty poorly priced given the performance on offer at the moment in my opinion, especially when you're looking in the £150-350 bracket.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

I’ve got an old amd Msi r9 270x 4gb card .....

Been looking at a

Asus PH-GTX1660-O6G

Is that a nice boost ? Looking at small factor and new. On a 4k tv

Why small factor? It depends on what PSU you have but Vega 56 would give a significant boost over a 1660 and at 4k a 1660 is going to seriously struggle.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

Not looked on specs of my old 270x length wise. It’s not exactly tiny even back in the day.

Use a tape measure, the Sapphire Pulse Vega 56 is 28cm, but I'd want to check your PSU is capable of running it, what PSU do you have?

 

[chrcoluk]

They still a thing just lower end than what you might expect.

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...ddr5-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-40m-as.html

Close to a gtx 970 in performance? for under £200 not too bad.

 

[Gray2233]

£170 for a 3GB 1060 is not a good price tbh.

 

[chrcoluk]

It is in this day and age, you have to recognise the world moves on and there is a thing called inflation, the days of maxwell launch pricing are long gone I am afraid.

What do you expect for £160 then? brand new.

Its comparable to a 970 which was £250 or there abouts at launch, but with much lower draw, less heat and for £90 less. The 970 was effectively only 3.5 gig so is only 512 less memory.

 

[TALON1973]

£170 for a 3GB 1060 is not a good price tbh.

It's a 6gb card

Technical specification
Product Description ASUS PH-GTX1660-O6G - OC Edition - graphics card - GF GTX 1660 - 6 GB
Device Type Graphics card
Bus Type PCI Express 3.0 x16
Graphics Engine NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
Memory 6 GB GDDR5
Core Clock 1560 MHz
Boost Clock 1830 MHz
CUDA Cores 1408
Effective Memory Clock 8002 MHz
Memory Interface 192-bit
Max Resolution 7680 x 4320
Max Monitors Supported 3
Interfaces DisplayPort
API Supported DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.5
Dimensions (WxDxH) 3.9 cm x 17.4 cm x 12.1 cm

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

£170 for a 3GB 1060 is not a good price tbh.

I mean you can pick up an RX 570 4gb for £110 that performs as well. You'd only want to settle for it if you had a really crappy PSU

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

It is in this day and age, you have to recognise the world moves on and there is a thing called inflation, the days of maxwell launch pricing are long gone I am afraid.

What do you expect for £160 then? brand new.

Its comparable to a 970 which was £250 or there abouts at launch, but with much lower draw, less heat and for £90 less. The 970 was effectively only 3.5 gig so is only 512 less memory.

In this day and age I picked up a Vega 56 for £180, Saphire Nitro 580 4gb for £126 (the pulse was £115) and the RX570 4gb which easily matches the 1060 3gb is easily available for £110

The only way you buy a 1060 3gb with those available is if you have a really weak PSU