Videocard Buying Strategy

S

Sovereign

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
3,098
So I'm reading that of all things, Borderlands 2 might punch my GTX470 where it hurts (if I want PhysX blah blah blah).

I run at 1920x1200. This, I'm aware, will probably increase my "cost of graphics cards" since higher resolutions (I used to be 1680x1050) mean more power.

So that brings me to my question: for someone at my resolution (whole rig is "Play [H]ard" in signature), which of the following strategies seems to make the most sense to you?

- Buy a mid-high-end (GTX *70 products or similar), replace every two years or so.
- Buy ultra-high-end (GTX *90 dual-GPU since I don't have room for SLI), replace every four years or so.

It also appears that the GTX 690 has come very close to 680 SLI in one card (source).

When I ran lower resolutions, video cards had much longer "legs." I bought my GTX470 in late 2010--after the 5-series had arrived and kicked its prices down. Now, I'm realizing the price of the big screen (1920 and up).
 
Buying a ultra-high-end card and hoping it lasts a really long time is almost always a losing bet. You are better off with smaller incremental upgrades for GPUs.
 
690 is a tremendous waste of power at the moment (for your resolution), and by the time it is no longer "far too much" it may very well be VRAM limited. A 670 is a far better buy (and strategy in general).

I still vote for a 7950 right now due to their insane price point right now, but if it has to be Nvidia then it has to be a 670 (or really, at your res a 660Ti wouldn't kill you.)
 
@Forceman: Okay, that's what I was wondering. I will go with incremental, more frequent upgrades. Cheaper, and less of a beating on my power supply.

@Sn0_Man: I'm not against ATI--I just haven't kept up with them since I've had constant NVIDIA in my gaming rig since 2005...

What about the 680? I recall (perhaps incorrectly) the 470 was the stepchild no one wanted (either buy the 460 or 480). What about the 670? Is it also the unwanted child, or has that changed? I'm willing to spend more if the 680 is truly a better value.
 
Sovereign said:
@Forceman: Okay, that's what I was wondering. I will go with incremental, more frequent upgrades. Cheaper, and less of a beating on my power supply.

@Sn0_Man: I'm not against ATI--I just haven't kept up with them since I've had constant NVIDIA in my gaming rig since 2005...

What about the 680? I recall (perhaps incorrectly) the 470 was the stepchild no one wanted (either buy the 460 or 480). What about the 670? Is it also the unwanted child, or has that changed? I'm willing to spend more if the 680 is truly a better value.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, both the 570's and now the 670's were considered to have more value compared to there X80 brothers.
 
@Sweetleader: Then it's even better for my wallet that I asked! An eVGA GTX 670 can be had for $384 new (price too low to show on NewEgg--had to add to cart).

Too bad eVGA dropped their lifetime warranty though...
 
670's can be had for $350 now (Check the hot deals section), although if it's gotta be eVGA, well I can respect that too. I Like eVGA, I'm just not sure I like eVGA $35 more than, say, Galaxy etc.

Also, yeah in recent generations the #2 card has been the better proposition for sure.
 
True, I only like eVGA because of the cross-shipping (say, if my card's limping along I can still use my PC). But now, my 470 can be my spare, I guess.

This may not all be necessary either--we shall see if Borderlands 2, cranked to ALL THE HIGH SETTINGS, brings it to its knees.

Thanks, all!
 
The 690 is basically 680 SLI on a single card, so they will perform practically the same, especially at the same clocks.

As others said, getting the next step down single GPU card (this generation its the 670 and 7950) is usually a better value.
 
And Galaxy has the same length warranty... eVGA may have just lost me as a customer assuming Galaxy's customer service is good.
 
If you ever have issues with Galaxy, they have a rep on this forum who has an excellent history of fast-tracking any issues that come up here.

EG: Rebate failures, RMA requests, etc.
 
Sn0_Man said:
690 is a tremendous waste of power at the moment (for your resolution), and by the time it is no longer "far too much" it may very well be VRAM limited. A 670 is a far better buy (and strategy in general).

I still vote for a 7950 right now due to their insane price point right now, but if it has to be Nvidia then it has to be a 670 (or really, at your res a 660Ti wouldn't kill you.)
Click to expand...


http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007709%20600030348%20600315498%20600311820%20600007787&IsNodeId=1&name=4GB
More vram will defiantly help you stay 'current' and since your already up this far in price 670 or radeon 7. Though ATI may not be the best choice at the moment, I have not been to pleased with their drivers as of late. Diablo 3 issues forced me to skip several updates.
And I gave up on my crossfire setup.
 
No need to get 4GB 670 for his resolution. When 2GB isn't enough, a 670 won't be enough. The same is not true for a 690 @1200p.

Driver complaints are hilarious. GW2 had a ton of complaints of irregular performance/crashes with NV cards. I've seen a few complaints about Borderlands 2 as well, with NV cards.

I'd be interested to hear what issues you had with diablo 3. If you are talking about not supporting 12.4 drivers on launch, that was a joke. 12.4 worked just fine for everybody in D3.

Not gonna lie, crossfire is pretty awkward right now, by all accounts.

All that said, my 670 has yet to cause me problems. Same with my 7950.
 
Galaxy is the way to go.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1716624

I got one myself, waiting for it to ship. Pretty good deal if you follow the link.
No tax, free shipping, IR + MIR. (Well, I had to order from circuitcity.com for the no tax, but you'll figure it out)

BTW, this is all due to price/performance. Dont really care red vs. green. I have plenty of cards from both camps.
 
Sovereign said:
And Galaxy has the same length warranty... eVGA may have just lost me as a customer assuming Galaxy's customer service is good.
Click to expand...

My guess is that too many people were abusing the return policy and getting RMAs when their cards failed because of overclocking. Either that or they realized the simple truth that all electronics fail eventually and offering lifetime warranties was not a good long term survival strategy. No reason to jump ship just because of that.
 
For what its worth, im quite happy with my 470 GTX considering how much i paid for it. what about buying a cheap second card to use as physx processor -- reduces the load from the 470 and gives you playable framerates again.
 
night_2004 said:
My guess is that too many people were abusing the return policy and getting RMAs when their cards failed because of overclocking. Either that or they realized the simple truth that all electronics fail eventually and offering lifetime warranties was not a good long term survival strategy. No reason to jump ship just because of that.
Click to expand...

And to be honest, making the warranty transferrable, which they did, is much better for the resale value of the card than a lifetime warranty to just the original purchaser. I'd take transferrable over lifetime any day.
 
Sn0_Man said:
No need to get 4GB 670 for his resolution. When 2GB isn't enough, a 670 won't be enough. The same is not true for a 690 @1200p.

Driver complaints are hilarious. GW2 had a ton of complaints of irregular performance/crashes with NV cards. I've seen a few complaints about Borderlands 2 as well, with NV cards.

I'd be interested to hear what issues you had with diablo 3. If you are talking about not supporting 12.4 drivers on launch, that was a joke. 12.4 worked just fine for everybody in D3.

Not gonna lie, crossfire is pretty awkward right now, by all accounts.

All that said, my 670 has yet to cause me problems. Same with my 7950.
Click to expand...

I see your point about the vram limits, but I don't see such a huge shift in GPU architecture that would negate the benefits of more vram in the future.
Are we not just getting into dx11? I mean I know its been around for a bit, but how many games use it?
My issues of course are based on my comp and software and may not represent the norm.

Weird d3 stuff,
'stuttering' though not the kind you typically see. there may be other name for it. some I think may have been network related.
crashes event viewer almost always pointed me towards CCC.
generally just performance that was sub par for what my box 'should' have been capable of.
I dropped all gfx down to lowest, redid my wiring (double checked all rails weren't being overloaded)
eventually wiped drivers and did fresh install to something under 12.
? 11.8 maybe 12.1 ?

this eventually fixed my issues but my crossfire was gone and I think we had a patch.

so morale of the story I blame drivers but the complexity of the issue makes it hard to pinpoint.
 
Price/Performance ratio usually goes to the #2 & #3 cards. While you are currently playing on 1920*1200 do not rule out you getting a 2560*1440 monitor in the future. I think the sweet spot for Power/Performance is the #2 card. While I do not know the type of games you are playing, if you play Crysis, the new one coming in Feb 2013 is suppose to bring every computer to its knees. BY that time the new AMD 8xxx series will be out. You are looking to get a card at the end of a manufacturing model cycle. I do not know how badly you need a card but I think getting one at the beginning of a cycle is the best way to go.

Someone is sure to say, Yeah but new cards are always coming out, why wait? The performance you want to carry you through 2013 & 2014 games is the reason.
 
Tsumi said:
As others said, getting the next step down single GPU card (this generation its the 670 and 7950) is usually a better value.
Click to expand...

I am kicking myself over those two cards & possibly the 660Ti.

Sn0_Man said:
I still vote for a 7950 right now due to their insane price point right now, but if it has to be Nvidia then it has to be a 670 (or really, at your res a 660Ti wouldn't kill you.)
Click to expand...

Honestly, the 660Ti seems to fair really well for 1900 x 1200 in reviews, but is it the right choice given even a OC 7950. I hate non-clear choices, but it's good for the wallet.

Sn0_Man said:
Driver complaints are hilarious.

All that said, my 670 has yet to cause me problems. Same with my 7950.
Click to expand...

BF3 isn't an issue for AMD with me, but WoW is a different story. Get stutters with my AMD based cards, but that was a 6950, so things could change. Nvidia just seems a better fit with WoW, but damn that 7950 Pricing is so damn good :(

Op good luck with your decision, I'm breaking my neck over mine.
 
night_2004 said:
My guess is that too many people were abusing the return policy and getting RMAs when their cards failed because of overclocking. Either that or they realized the simple truth that all electronics fail eventually and offering lifetime warranties was not a good long term survival strategy. No reason to jump ship just because of that.
Click to expand...

In this case, Galaxy cards are less expensive. The other thing I like about eVGA is their customer service--knowledgeable and not outsourced so I have to play a guessing game as to what the person is saying.

However, if everything is now equal (rather than advantage eVGA on warranty/service), why pay more?
 
I would still think that eVGA just might have better after market support and that is worth a few bucks to me. Having not bought any Galaxy products I cannot offer an opinion to compare the two.
 
night_2004 said:
I would still think that eVGA just might have better after market support. Maybe. Having not bought any Galaxy products I cannot offer an opinion to compare the two.
Click to expand...

As long as the warranty isn't a pain (I had to get a new 470 because it was doing green-blocks-and-random-distortions under normal load temperatures) I would hold the service equal.

I may not even need a 670 anyway--I'm now seeing reports that concerns about a 470 vs. Borderlands 2 may be overblown. Plus, if the issue is a 10-15% drop in frames (because of PhysX) I can probably OC my way out.
 
I wish this forum had a way to rate posters so you could see who gave out better advice.

1. The higher end you go the more you pay for diminishing returns.
2. I know that comment above that the 670 is an ugly "stepchild" has already been blasted but it just amazes me that someone who thinks like that feels like they have enough knowledge on the subject to offer advice.
3. As long as you're not buying low end cards, more frequent midrange upgrades will generally keep you happier than less frequent high end upgrades.
4. My advice would be play Borderlands 2 on your 470 and see if you're happy. If you are, then no need to spend money now. If not, get a 670.

(I'm always game for a lively nvidia vs amd debate but when someone who has been happy with their nvidia card asks about upgrade advice related to a new game that has physx hype and he specifically mentions physx, I don't really see the need to be throwing around amd suggestions when nvidia options clearly seem to suit him better.)
 
modulus said:
(I'm always game for a lively nvidia vs amd debate but when someone who has been happy with their nvidia card asks about upgrade advice related to a new game that has physx hype and he specifically mentions physx, I don't really see the need to be throwing around amd suggestions when nvidia options clearly seem to suit him better.)
Click to expand...

I tried to be upfront about options from both sides. It isn't like he can't use a 7950 and keep his 470 for physx if he wishes.

If somebody with some old beats headphones came to you, and asked about an upgrade saying he had heard great things about the new beats headphones, are you really gonna recommend beats to him? I don't see a problem in laying out as many options as you can.

That said, I agree very much with the "try the game with the 470, and if it isn't good enough THEN upgrade" plan.
 
Well guys, the verdict is in(complete): no issues with my stock-clocked 470 @ 1920 with all settings (including PhysX) maxed.

It could become a problem with a very large number of enemies (who knows) but I haven't see such large concentrations, yet. I am only level 10 and 5 hours in though.
 
Buy less expensive cards more often.

What I like to do is lurk the buy/sell/trade forum here. When some new uber card comes out, there is always someone that upgrades to that and sells there card. You get at most a 1gen old card for at a good discount.

Or in the other case you buy a current generation card that someone owned for only a short time and is selling it due to $$ or maybe they switched to nvidia etc.

Either way you get a nice card for a good price. Last video card I bought brand new was an ATI x1800xt 512mb. (I bought a 4890 and 7950 on the BST forum)
 
Galaxy registration and now RMA are a pain in the ASS!!!

My GTX 680 just died on me and NO, I wasn't OC'ing or anything. Just gaming.

Never again will I buy from Galaxy. I recommend you all do the same. Still waiting on a response for my ticket. 48hours and counting.
 
LancerVI said:
Galaxy registration and now RMA are a pain in the ASS!!!

My GTX 680 just died on me and NO, I wasn't OC'ing or anything. Just gaming.

Never again will I buy from Galaxy. I recommend you all do the same. Still waiting on a response for my ticket. 48hours and counting.
Click to expand...

PM Andrew, the Galaxy rep on this site (username "Galaxy") and he will help you.
 
I typically get the mid-upper range GPU (like my current GTX 570), then skip every other generation when upgrading.

I'm very impressed with the current generation from both AMD and nVidia. As much as I'd love to jump and get something now, I'm going to stick to my usual scheme and wait until the Radeon HD 8xxx and GeForce GTX 7xx emerge.
 
Last edited:
I used to buy every high end graphics card the day it became available. I can honestly say I was a complete idiot back then. There are ZERO games out at the moment that require you to run a GTX 680 or Radeon 7970 and get 60+ fps, unless you have 3+ monitors and are running crazy resolutions. Buying a mid-range card for half the money is by far the smartest solution.

Now, when buying graphics cards and CPU's I use the $300 rule. If you spend much over $300, your paying a shitload more money to go marginally faster.

ie: GTX 680@$500 vs a GTX 660 Ti@$300, your paying 150% more money, for what, 20% more performance?

Same with CPU's, Intel 3770K@$300 vs Intel 3930K or 3960K@$600+. For double your cash, your going maybe 10% faster.

There is zero value in buying the "latest greatest" video cards and they won't last any longer. You'll be way a head if you skip 2-3 generations, or more of video cards, then buy a new one and you'll actually see a performance difference.
 
I may buy a 670 when the 770 or 870 (not sure which it will be--we've had 2, 4, 5, 6...what's next?) shows up. That should push the price of the 670 down to ~$250 which is where I got my 470 after the 5-series hit.
 
i bought a 670 this year, i wish i bought the 680 cause from now on im gonna buy the flagship card, sell buy the flagship


for ex;

buy a 680 (early adopt). use for a year and sell it for 250-300 when the 780 comes out. rinse and repeat every year.


flagship gpu every year for 250 sounds dope to me. some people arent willing to pay that though
 
Just a FYI, running 12.4s and latest Cap profile running 3 7970s in tri-fire Borderlands 2 @ 1920x1200 is getting 250fps to 300 Fps + with everything at Max settings lol.
 
Sovereign said:
So I'm reading that of all things, Borderlands 2 might punch my GTX470 where it hurts (if I want PhysX blah blah blah).

I run at 1920x1200. This, I'm aware, will probably increase my "cost of graphics cards" since higher resolutions (I used to be 1680x1050) mean more power.

So that brings me to my question: for someone at my resolution (whole rig is "Play [H]ard" in signature), which of the following strategies seems to make the most sense to you?

- Buy a mid-high-end (GTX *70 products or similar), replace every two years or so.
- Buy ultra-high-end (GTX *90 dual-GPU since I don't have room for SLI), replace every four years or so.

It also appears that the GTX 690 has come very close to 680 SLI in one card (source).

When I ran lower resolutions, video cards had much longer "legs." I bought my GTX470 in late 2010--after the 5-series had arrived and kicked its prices down. Now, I'm realizing the price of the big screen (1920 and up).
Click to expand...

OP, it's really hard to give a solid "rule of thumb" for this one. Most have suggested purchasing a video card that is one step down from the highest end that you can get. Some have said that buying video cards, especially the high end ones, is a crap shoot. I tend to agree with the crap shoot camp.

With the definition of playability shifting all over the place (remember when 1024x768 was considered GOOD?), it really is up to you - the gamer - to decide what you want. My advice is to get a card that will run your desired settings with a decent amount of headroom, and just stick with what you got until it becomes unbearable. The good news is that you don't need to spend $500 to achieve this.

Purchasing a video card for the future is gambling. Sometimes graphics card engineers strike gold, sometimes they don't. My Radeon 9700pro, for example, lasted a few years until I jumped to the X800XL - which didn't last at all. When Bioshock came out, I was officially screwed because my card didn't support SM3. I can only imagine that X850 owners felt even more burned because they paid $200 more for their cards, and they were more or less in the same boat as I was couple of generations down the road. Also, consider that graphics card makers are now giving older generation card the finger, in terms of driver support. Radeon HD-4000 owners are currently getting snubbed by AMD, when frankly, they could easily play any game this generation with good eye candy at low-to-mid resolutions.

Put it this way. With incremental upgrades at $300 - if you end up with something that doesn't last too long; at least you had fun with it while you did, and at least you didn't spend $500 on what is just a beefier version of a dud. :)
 
Marcdaddy said:
Just a FYI, running 12.4s and latest Cap profile running 3 7970s in tri-fire Borderlands 2 @ 1920x1200 is getting 250fps to 300 Fps + with everything at Max settings lol.
Click to expand...

Why, oh why, would you buy tri-fire 7970s for 1920x1200?
 
Forceman said:
Why, oh why, would you buy tri-fire 7970s for 1920x1200?
Click to expand...

My guess is he has more monitors than that, but he wanted to show how easy it is to run BL2 at 1920x1200. If three videocards can do that, one videocard which is similar to a 7970 would do just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top