Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by Guest2, Nov 6, 2019.
Or save even more money and pick up a 2070 super with not much of a performance drop off.
Or save even more money and pick up a 5700 XT with not much of a performance drop off.
or save even more by buying a 1050
1050? Hell, my HD 6670 Digital isn't that far behind and way cheaper!
@easyrider did you pick up a RTX card yet or are you still sporting that poor old 1080Ti?
still got the 1080ti
Hanging in there like me I see. It will be worth the wait. The latest I see the 3000 series coming out is June.
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.
For your eyes maybe
In before your my eyes are 20/20 post
I did for a long time.
Use a combination of 40” 4K, 32” and 27” 1080p.
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+.
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
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.
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.
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
1060 is still the most popular GPU on steam's hardware survey
Never had much. Probably £50. I purchased everything myself.
Separate names with a comma.