GPU chart

[Macro Device]

I decided to put all the eggs in one basket.

10% difference and less is considered 0% difference (can you tell if your game is running at 50 FPS or 55 without overlay showing you the numbers?). This is why RX 6600 XT and 6650 XT, and a duo of 6700 XT and 6750 XT are considered the same GPU. Only buy the xx50 if the price difference is negligible (below 30 bucks). Doesn't apply to RX 6950 XT because this GPU is better binned than 6900 XT.

Spoiler: 6950 XT VS 6900 XT in overclocking

This chart is by all intents and purposes not exhausting and cannot be considered an ultimate guide.

Anything important (naming weirdness and tier shifting, for example, is not important since both AMD and nVidia are doing it to the same extent) I forgot to mention or was incorrect at is appreciated to be fixed.

The main purpose of this chart is mostly to answer the question what GPUs the hypothetical buyer should ignore. To a lesser extent, what they should purchase.

Arguments like "AMD GPUs don't last long, nVidia GPUs run out of memory" and similar stuff will be ignored. At least by me. Moderators' opinions may vary.

Spoiler: The chart itself

Intel GPUs are not on the chart due to their drivers immaturity and overall instability on older systems (yet I admit they had it miles worse a year ago). If you're considering Intel's dGPU you know what you are doing better than I do.

I am not capable of monitoring pricing worldwide. If, say, RTX 4070 is cheaper than RX 7700 XT in your particular country, this is nothing I can do and the former is a no-brainer for you. The chart is for scenarios when relative prices of different GPUs are close to those in the US.

 

[notaburner]

Is a 10% difference really "no difference" if the price is the same? It may not be easily perceptible but there's no reason to buy something that's measurably worse for the same amount. For the 6600xt and 6750xt example, I would include both the cards and just tier them in terms of performance. If you see both at the same price, the 6600xt would not be a good recommendation. Then leave a comment that it isn't worth paying more than $10 (or whatever amount equals the performance gap) more for each card as you step up. I know it hurts the simplicity of the chart, but leaving out cards makes it less useful for a prospective buyer who might see a 6650xt, check the chart, and not see the card included and discount it as an option. Just a thought.

 

[Bobaganoosh]

I'm going to apologize for what seems to be a nitpick, but it may be a helpful note for the 4090 that many CPUs will bottleneck it, especially below 1440p (and even there sometimes). While I'd like to believe that someone willing to spend $1600+ on a GPU reads/watches enough reviews thoroughly to know that before buying, I have seen plenty of examples of people with 9900k, 8700k, 3700X, etc. buy one and be surprised. Again, this is probably not a necessary note, but 4090's are more CPU-bottlenecked than any GPU in a long time and seems to surprise people.

 

[Macro Device]

Is a 10% difference really "no difference" if the price is the same? It may not be easily perceptible but there's no reason to buy something that's measurably worse for the same amount. For the 6600xt and 6750xt example, I would include both the cards and just tier them in terms of performance. If you see both at the same price, the 6600xt would not be a good recommendation. Then leave a comment that it isn't worth paying more than $10 (or whatever amount equals the performance gap) more for each card as you step up. I know it hurts the simplicity of the chart, but leaving out cards makes it less useful for a prospective buyer who might see a 6650xt, check the chart, and not see the card included and discount it as an option. Just a thought.

Fair point. Put it into my disclaimer.

 

[notaburner]

Had one more thing to add:

Could also be interesting to tier the cards by performance class instead of price. Lump together every card that falls within 10% range of performance (or any percentage that makes sense to you) into a group. Maybe label them as "Entry level", "Budget" , "Lower Midrange", etc. Then maybe add a qualifier like "1080p 60fps" to that category name. Then give a recommended price for that performance tier. Would make it easy for a buyer to see the cards that can deliver the performance they are looking for and the price they should pay without relying on them already knowing if a card is good for 1080p/1440p/etc. That would eliminate things like the 3050 and 4060 being included in the same tier as they are when they are grouped by price, despite not having comparable performance. With that grouping you could slot the 3050 in the "Entry Level" category with a maximum price of say $175 (if it's impossible to find at that price then it shouldn't be recommended, which takes care of your "big discount" markers). The 6600xt through 4060 could all slot into "Budget" with a price of $225-300 as they are more comparable. And so on from there. That would allow someone to look for performance tier first, then walk back towards the price they are willing to pay. I'm just assuming that someone who needs a lot of help choosing the right GPU might not know what a reasonable budget would be for the performance they require.

 

[Macro Device]

Had one more thing to add:

Could also be interesting to tier the cards by performance class instead of price. Lump together every card that falls within 10% range of performance (or any percentage that makes sense to you) into a group. Maybe label them as "Entry level", "Budget" , "Lower Midrange", etc. Then maybe add a qualifier like "1080p 60fps" to that category name. Then give a recommended price for that performance tier. Would make it easy for a buyer to see the cards that can deliver the performance they are looking for and the price they should pay without relying on them already knowing if a card is good for 1080p/1440p/etc. That would eliminate things like the 3050 and 4060 being included in the same tier as they are when they are grouped by price, despite not having comparable performance. With that grouping you could slot the 3050 in the "Entry Level" category with a maximum price of say $175 (if it's impossible to find at that price then it shouldn't be recommended, which takes care of your "big discount" markers). The 6600xt through 4060 could all slot into "Budget" with a price of $225-300 as they are more comparable. And so on from there.

Look at my chart once again. Do you like it more now?

 

[notaburner]

Ya that's great. Makes it a lot more clear what to expect for each of the budget ranges.

Sorry for nitpicking one last thing, but I might split up the $600-1200 category into two with the 7900xtx and 4080 in their own group. They have quite a performance jump over the other cards in that category which would make a nice $600-850 group for the 4070ti/7900xt and below.

Edited $800 to $850. Forgot how much the 4070ti goes for despite buying one myself (ignorance is bliss). Would not recommend at that price lol.

 

[Macro Device]

I'm going to apologize for what seems to be a nitpick, but it may be a helpful note for the 4090 that many CPUs will bottleneck it, especially below 1440p (and even there sometimes). While I'd like to believe that someone willing to spend $1600+ on a GPU reads/watches enough reviews thoroughly to know that before buying, I have seen plenty of examples of people with 9900k, 8700k, 3700X, etc. buy one and be surprised. Again, this is probably not a necessary note, but 4090's are more CPU-bottlenecked than any GPU in a long time and seems to surprise people.

You don't need to bestow no apology. Absolutely fair point.

Sorry for nitpicking one last thing, but I might split up the $600-1200 category into two with the 7900xtx and 4080 in their own group. They have quite a performance jump over the other cards in that category which would make a nice $600-800 group for the 4070ti/7900xt and below.

Completely okay. Updated my chart once again.

 

[80251]

I'm going to apologize for what seems to be a nitpick, but it may be a helpful note for the 4090 that many CPUs will bottleneck it, especially below 1440p (and even there sometimes). While I'd like to believe that someone willing to spend $1600+ on a GPU reads/watches enough reviews thoroughly to know that before buying, I have seen plenty of examples of people with 9900k, 8700k, 3700X, etc. buy one and be surprised. Again, this is probably not a necessary note, but 4090's are more CPU-bottlenecked than any GPU in a long time and seems to surprise people.

I'm surprised that my 4090 isn't much bottlenecked by my 9700k @ 5.2Ghz -- at least if you go by GPU utilization.

 

[notaburner]

Might add "Minimum Recommended CPU (certain games will require faster CPUs)" on your purple annotation. Just based on starfield alone needing a ryzen 7000/13th gen intel part to even keep up with the 4080 or 7900xtx when at 1080p (settings that would achieve close to 100fps which one would expect when dropping so much on a card).

On the white annotation, I'd add "and will be a good option around a price of X (your call on what that would be)" at the end of the first sentence. Just to give a ballpark on pricing as it might not be clear if something like a $200 jump from a 4070ti would be worth it.

Hate to add on yet another annotation but maybe a blue one for the resolution/FPS would be helpful. A disclaimer saying "Expected performance based on an average of games. Performance is game dependent and cards of this class are not guaranteed to match or be limited to the performance level stated. Check game benchmarks if you have a level of performance requirement for a specific game." Could make it sound less like a PR person wrote it.

 

[Macro Device]

I'm surprised that my 4090 isn't much bottlenecked by my 9700k @ 5.2Ghz -- at least if you go by GPU utilization.

Some games are extremely GPU intensive so you could've overclocked your 4090 and still get improvements despite considerably old CPU.
And you're probably gaming at 4K where CPU speed isn't AS crucial.

Might add "Minimum Recommended CPU (certain games will require faster CPUs)" on your purple annotation. Just based on starfield alone needing a ryzen 7000/13th gen intel part to even keep up with the 4080 or 7900xtx when at 1080p (settings that would achieve close to 100fps which one would expect when dropping so much on a card).

I think just having one recommended section is enough. Those who have a brain will understand that their lower end CPU will somehow someway harm their experience.

On the white annotation, I'd add "and will be a good option around a price of X (your call on what that would be)" at the end of the first sentence. Just to give a ballpark on pricing as it might not be clear if something like a $200 jump from a 4070ti would be worth it.

I don't get it. Care to explain it in a less IQ way?

 

[notaburner]

I just meant changing that sentence to say "Minimum Recommended CPU" instead of just "Recommended CPU". I agree there's no need to add a whole additional recommendation section.

"Rtx 4080 and Rx 7900xtx are closer to the 4090 than the rest of their price range and would be good values at $1000 or $1100 respectively." Your call on what those prices would be. Basically to give someone who sees a 7900xtx at $1000 and thinks, damn I might just save $200 and get a 4070ti (given they are in the same sort of grouping) some reassurance that the $1000 price is actually reasonable.

 

[evernessince]

According to HWUB, the 7800 XT is the best value GPU released this generation and beats the 6800 XT and 6800 in value. The only GPU with better value is the 6700 XT and that's a bracket lower.

I'm surprised that my 4090 isn't much bottlenecked by my 9700k @ 5.2Ghz -- at least if you go by GPU utilization.

Really depends on the games you play. A game like starfield for example will bottleneck all the way up to a 13700K.

 

[Macro Device]

"Rtx 4080 and Rx 7900xtx are closer to the 4090 than the rest of their price range and would be good values at $1000 or $1100 respectively." Your call on what those prices would be.

I think the only irrationally overpriced GPUs are:

• RX 6750 XT (very close to RX 6800, yet the difference in performance is obvious)
• RTX 3050 (very poor performance)
• RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB (128-bit bus makes 16 GB useless, $500 for this piece is just nonsense)
• RTX 4070 series ($600 for a GPU which just matches the previous gen $650 GPUs...; $800 is just too much for a GPU which is half the best GPU overall)
• RTX 4080 (how come 4 figures are OK for a non-halo GPU?)

Others are sane or relatively sane. 7700 XT will lose at least 80 dollars when they stop packing Starfield inside. 7800 XT will also lose some quid. So will the rest of GPUs because aftermarket and increasing poverty are still a thing.

According to HWUB, the 7800 XT is the best value GPU released this generation and beats the 6800 XT and 6800 in value. The only GPU with better value is the 6700 XT and that's a bracket lower.

But what if you live somewhere where electricity bills are to the Moon? nVidia devices are way better in terms of bang per watt.
But what if you work with CUDA-oriented software?
But what if you got a 4k144 monitor and neither of "best value" GPUs really can push it and you need something like way more expensive 7900 XTX?

I agree with them being better for what they cost but it's not one-sided.

 

[notaburner]

I think the only irrationally overpriced GPUs are:

• RX 6750 XT (very close to RX 6800, yet the difference in performance is obvious)
• RTX 3050 (very poor performance)
• RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB (128-bit bus makes 16 GB useless, $500 for this piece is just nonsense)
• RTX 4070 series ($600 for a GPU which just matches the previous gen $650 GPUs...; $800 is just too much for a GPU which is half the best GPU overall)
• RTX 4080 (how come 4 figures are OK for a non-halo GPU?)

Others are sane or relatively sane. 7700 XT will lose at least 80 dollars when they stop packing Starfield inside. 7800 XT will also lose some quid. So will the rest of GPUs because aftermarket and increasing poverty are still a thing.

That's totally fair. I'd adjust to your comment in notes of "RTX 4080 is a very expensive GPU" to "RTX 4080 is a very expensive GPU, but would a good value if found in the $1000-$1100 range." Not sure why I'm sticking on this one so feel free to ignore me. My thought was basically just to include a price where it could be competitive in your "bang for the buck" category.

 

[evernessince]

But what if you live somewhere where electricity bills are to the Moon? nVidia devices are way better in terms of bang per watt.
But what if you work with CUDA-oriented software?
But what if you got a 4k144 monitor and neither of "best value" GPUs really can push it and you need something like way more expensive 7900 XTX?

I agree with them being better for what they cost but it's not one-sided.

You titled the column "Best Performer Per Buck". Objectively that's the 7800 XT in the $400 - $600 tier on your chart. This list of stipulations you've just written are subjective and not something that you disclosed prior. If you are going to add in subjective weights in what appears to readers an objective metric, you need to both change the name of the column and disclose your weighing methodology. Something like "Weighted PPP [1] (performance per dollar)", and then have a [1] reference below with your formula. If you are truly arguing that certain Nvidia features bring more value, you need to properly quantify and communicate that by taking the steps above.

Just to show the problem with subjective opinions and how two can be correct at the same time I'll provide reasonable counter arguments to the points provided above:

- If you are that short on cash to the point where you are pinching pennies on your electricity bill, you shouldn't be spending $600 on a GPU in the first place. I'd argue that anyone purchasing a card of value $400 or more is much less likely to be as concerned about their electricity bill to the point where it'll be a major decision when buying a graphics card. If someone is splurging on a GPU yet is having trouble make ends meet the general recommendation would be for them to not buy the GPU at all but instead take care of basic bills. The power difference between the same tier AMD and Nvidia card is in most cases going to be 50w more (on the high end, less on the lower end cards), which assuming 8 hours per day of 100% usage (an extreme use case scenario given most do not run their PC at full bore for 8 hours) for 365 days a year (again giving you the benefit of the doubt as the vast majority of people will not use their PC every day) at the US average of 12 cents per kWh that amounts to $17.52 per year. Even if you do live in a country with vastly more expensive power, even assuming an extreme use case like I did above seems to bear out that the amount to be saved is minimal. Even at double the rate it only comes out to 35.04. If you are buying a $600 GPU and you are worried about $17 - $35 you should not be buying that GPU at all, period. The far better argument in favor of lower power consumption IMO is the heat output, which is a problem in hot areas around the world and during the summer. Again though, that's very subjective and will vary person to person.

- If you work with CUDA related software than you are likely not looking at this chart to begin with. Why would someone locked to a specific software eccosystem consider hardware that can't run their software? Either you need CUDA and you don't, you'd have to make an entirely different chart for those people.

- If you need a GPU for 4K144Hz but none of the best value GPUs fit the bill then you are simply going to have to buy what's best for your situation. I'm not really sure how that's really a counter-argument against having the 7800 XT as the $400-600 best value.

 

[Macro Device]

- If you are that short on cash to the point where you are pinching pennies on your electricity bill, you shouldn't be spending $600 on a GPU in the first place. I'd argue that anyone purchasing a card of value $400 or more is much less likely to be as concerned about their electricity bill to the point where it'll be a major decision when buying a graphics card. If someone is splurging on a GPU yet is having trouble make ends meet the general recommendation would be for them to not buy the GPU at all but instead take care of basic bills. The power difference between the same tier AMD and Nvidia card is in most cases going to be 50w more (on the high end, less on the lower end cards), which assuming 8 hours per day of 100% usage (an extreme use case scenario given most do not run their PC at full bore for 8 hours) for 365 days a year (again giving you the benefit of the doubt as the vast majority of people will not use their PC every day) at the US average of 12 cents per kWh that amounts to $17.52 per year. Even if you do live in a country with vastly more expensive power, even assuming an extreme use case like I did above seems to bear out that the amount to be saved is minimal. Even at double the rate it only comes out to 35.04. If you are buying a $600 GPU and you are worried about $17 - $35 you should not be buying that GPU at all, period. The far better argument in favor of lower power consumption IMO is the heat output, which is a problem in hot areas around the world and during the summer. Again though, that's very subjective and will vary person to person.

In Europe, electricity had been $1 per kWh at some point. 30 plus cents per kWh ain't alien for them, too. It's also not entirely about being worried, it's about paying more over time. Say, for 12 cents per kWh, you get about 10 dollars annually so you will be fine since you'll most probably change your GPU by the time it "outeats" the price difference between it and the competition. That's why I put the "best FPS per Watt" column for such individuals.

- If you work with CUDA related software than you are likely not looking at this chart to begin with. Why would someone locked to a specific software eccosystem consider hardware that can't run their software? Either you need CUDA and you don't, you'd have to make an entirely different chart for those people.

Yeah, was bold of me.

- If you need a GPU for 4K144Hz but none of the best value GPUs fit the bill then you are simply going to have to buy what's best for your situation. I'm not really sure how that's really a counter-argument against having the 7800 XT as the $400-600 best value.

It's not a counter-argument. It's just "best value" is not always a way to go. I wasn't arguing with you.

 

[evernessince]

In Europe, electricity had been $1 per kWh at some point.

The highest I'm seeing is $0.50 in denmark. Anyone that has to pay that much for energy prices should really complain to their government for failing to meet the country's energy needs. Solar is 0.6 to 0.8 cents per kWh and 0.12 cents if you also include the cost of a battery storage system. Solar systems can even use EOL recycled batteries to reduce cost further as the lowered voltage and capacity isn't much of a concern for energy storage. Batteries are typically retired at around 80% health for their original use and can continue to be used in power storage all the way down to 20% health generally.

It's not a counter-argument. It's just "best value" is not always a way to go

Got ya. I agree, that said if you are going to include a best performance per dollar category it should be clearly define what exactly you mean by that given you appear to have indicated that you have potentially weighed the category with metrics aside from that which the name implies.

 

[Macro Device]

should really complain to their government for failing to meet the country's energy needs

Everyone complains, improvements are... slow to come. Very slow.

Solar is 0.6 to 0.8 cents per kWh and 0.12 cents if you also include the cost of a battery storage system

It's all good but in some countries, you can get fined or even incarcerated for using quote-unquote "too much" of "free" electricity. Laws are incredibly anti-human.

 

[evernessince]

Everyone complains, improvements are... slow to come. Very slow.

It's all good but in some countries, you can get fined or even incarcerated for using quote-unquote "too much" of "free" electricity. Laws are incredibly anti-human.

That is really sad. I've seen some of it first hand myself though. You could have the people vote in a referendum on a city run energy project in a landslide and some politician will bury it because they are paid off.