Are these criteria still valid when buying GPU in 2023?

[Coolio]

Hi guys,

I did some research on GPUs a while ago and made kinda list of important criteria to consider when choosing the right GPU. Just want to double-check if these criteria are still valid, or possibly new ones appeared (due to tech. progress), so that I'm aware of them too.
Can you kindly comment please?

1. Reference, Founders Edition (FE) and Add-in board (AIB) are pretty similar in speed, so if budget allows its better to buy the Reference of the senior model, rather than pay more for FE/AIB of the same model. FE (with binned chips) also makes little sense if you're not planning to overclock it.
2. The more cores - the more data is pushed to VRAM. However, Nvidia and AMD have different architecture, so only "intra-brand" comparison of core # makes sense.
3. VRAM defines the amount of data delivered to the monitor: the higher - the more detalized and hi-res picture. 8Gb is enough for 1440p, 10Gb is good for 4K. [are these numbers still valid? I plan to play on a 144Hz monitor at 1440p/hi-settings or 4K/mid-settings where it makes more sense. CPU: Intel i7-13700, RAM: 32Gb, DDR5]
4. I assume GDDR5X is pretty outdated these days, so should I choose a GDDR6 or GDDR 6X VRAM? Does HBM still have a problem with interposer, which made it unrepairable? If not - should I prefer HBM (HBM2, HBM2e) over GDDR?
5. Are G-Sync and V-sync still nice things to have, or were they replaced with smth. more efficient?
6. What about other trendy technologies like DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), Ray Tracing - after several years on the market, are they worth of the price paid for them? Any new ones to consider?

Will also highly appreciate your recommendations on the GPU that matches my config the best - from your expert view. The budget is up to $600. Can be a bit higher if this GPU will survive 1 CPU upgrade in 3-4 years, but maybe it makes more sense not to spend too much, but rather to upgrade GPU later to a newer model - together with the CPU...?

Thank you!

 

[LukeTbk]

1) Are you open to look for used deal or want to buy new ?
2) Do you have a target monitor in mind (resolution-hz) ?
3) Do you have a type of games you want to play (sometime a gpu family has an large advantage to say Call of Duty that can make it a non brainer) ?

 

[djstarfox]

The most important criteria is your use case.
I.E., is this a video editing workstation, a gaming box, a general computing (Office apps), or something else?
Next most important criteria is your budget.
Third criteria is what you're kind of saying in point #3 -- What size screen resolution do you want (or the max your monitor/TV will do)?

Other thoughts:
For point #1, I cannot comment on "editions", but the general rule that serves me well is buy a higher-end card that's a bit slower/cooler running edition. That way, there is room to overclock, or even if you don't overclock, performance is adequate & within a power-efficient range.
For example: For my use case, the AMD 6700 XT was a good fit performance-wise. However, 6700 XT is the highest clocked edition of that AMD chip Navi 22. The next model up 6800 uses a different chip Navi 21, runs much cooler, and has 2x the shader units. To me, 6800 was a much wiser buy for a marginal increase in price.
On point #2, I would include "memory bus width" (size) in your consideration. At higher resolutions such as 4K, this makes a bigger difference in performance.
On point #3, I've never played a game where the onboard memory of the video card limited me. It's always screen size + level of detail = performance limits. (Maybe if you get an 8K monitor or do video editing, this might become an important consideration.)
For point #4, just look at "memory bandwidth" (speed).
For point #5, I like to leave vsync enabled (at 120Hz), but if the card's performance falls below your monitor's screen refresh rate, anti-tearing features such as g-sync become a bit more important for FPS games. Otherwise, it's "nice to have".

 

[LukeTbk]

Has a general rules instead of trying to retro-engineer calculate performance of an already released product, simply look at benchmark, memory bandwidth will depend on how big-well cache work and so on, there is little need to make it complicated, product exist their performance can be explicitly seen.

 

[KickAssCop]

For $600 your best choices are 3080 12 GB or 3080 Ti. There also might be some 3090 seller out there who might sell it for 700-750 bucks.
Other choices if you don't care about RTX is a 6900XT or 6950XT for $600.

 

[Sir Beregond]

1. Reference cards are just that, the reference. I.e. this is the minimum (but often a little better than minimum) spec to build these. Founder Edition's are not the same as reference on the Nvidia side. They are usually built well, but can be lacking in available power for overclocking and no XOC BIOS available. AIB's would be preferable if you care about overclocking/benching as they often build with additional power plugs and often can be flashed with other BIOS for benching/overclocking.

2. Yes that is true to an extent, for example, I'd doubt a 3060 is really making full use of the 12GB frame buffer. But you also have to take into account the overall memory bus width with regard to resolution. You want higher bus widths at 4k (i.e. a 320-bit, 384-bit card) vs say a 256-bit which might be fine on 1440p, maybe some 4k if it has a large L3 or L2 cache. But a 192-bit bus would be 1080p only unless again it has a large L2 and L3 cache, then could do 1440p, but I wouldn't buy it for 4k.

3. Yes, VRAM stores image data, or rather provides quick access to image data and in general the more eye candy and high resolution textures you use, plus the higher resolution your display, the more VRAM you need. I am not sure what the basic minimum requirements are required. Its kinda hard to tell because simply monitoring "usage" in Afterburner doesn't differentiate between allocation and actual usage.

4. Instead of looking at the memory types, just look at the cards and what they come with. The last HBM gaming cards were the Vega 56 and 64 and the Radeon 7. Those are many generations old at this stage so unless you are looking at used cards, HBM is not relevant to the discussion of modern gaming cards. Modern Nvidia and AMD both use GDDR6, and Nvidia has started using Micron's GDDR6X for higher end Ampere and so far all Lovelace cards released. I'd agree with others, again, just look at capacity and bandwidth.

5. G-Sync will just help mitigate/avoid the screen tearing you might get if you drop below the V-Sync target of your monitor's refresh rate. It's basically a variable refresh rate technology. Yes, I'd say its a nice to have. There are also Free-Sync displays out there and probably more plentiful.

6. Up to you really. I've seen some pretty good looking RT implementations and I've seen others that just look more meh. It can help make it more like real life lighting effects combined with reflections and shadows, but depending on what your budget is for a card, may or may not be worth it. DLSS 2.0 works pretty well for the most part, but likewise I see situations still where I prefer it off vs on as it can introduce artifacts/blurring of the image. On the other hand, with a good implementation, it can mitigate performance losses for turning on RT and such. So overall, still up to you.

 

[Coolio]

1) Are you open to look for used deal or want to buy new ?
2) Do you have a target monitor in mind (resolution-hz) ?
3) Do you have a type of games you want to play (sometime a gpu family has an large advantage to say Call of Duty that can make it a non brainer) ?

Thank you for your reply, here are the answers:

1. Only new card
2. Not yet, but I am focused on a 144Hz, as 240Hz doesn't deliver so much difference (so far) compared to the amount of money it sucks from the pocket. This is the argument I've heard - can't confirm or deny it. What do you think?
3. Well, open worlds, definitely not multiplayer online games. You walk, solve riddles, sometimes shoot/fight. Something of that kind. Did that help somehow? An example of the few that grabbed my attention: Red Dead Redemption 2, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus, Elden Ring, etc.

 

[Coolio]

The most important criteria is your use case.
I.E., is this a video editing workstation, a gaming box, a general computing (Office apps), or something else?
Next most important criteria is your budget.
Third criteria is what you're kind of saying in point #3 -- What size screen resolution do you want (or the max your monitor/TV will do)?

Thank you! As I've mentioned earlier - this is a gaming machine. The budget - around $500-550. I could have spend up to $700 if this card remains valid for say 7 years, but I assume it's better to buy a $500 one and change it in 3-4 years to another $500 one, which will be a next generation card with better technologies. Makese sense?
For the screen resolution - not lower than 1440p, or 4K whenever it will look good with an FPS my GPU/build will secure. I don't want to play 1080p much, since I'm not an FPS maniac. Besides, my monitor most likely will be a 144Hz one (a 240Hz is not much different - that's what I heard), so FPS 144 will be my limit, right? Should be feasible @ 1440p I guess... As for 4K - well, FPS of say 80 should be not bad, if I'm not mistaken...?

the general rule that serves me well is buy a higher-end card that's a bit slower/cooler running edition. That way, there is room to overclock, or even if you don't overclock, performance is adequate & within a power-efficient range.

Sounds like AIB to me: good cooling + possibly already stock overclocked...

On point #2, I would include "memory bus width" (size) in your consideration. At higher resolutions such as 4K, this makes a bigger difference in performance.

For point #4, just look at "memory bandwidth" (speed).

Useful info, thank you! These 2 parameters are new for me (as opposed to cores/VRAM). Any idea of which "memory bus width" and "memory bandwith" are really good for 1440p and at least decent for 4K?

On point #3, I've never played a game where the onboard memory of the video card limited me. It's always screen size + level of detail = performance limits.

Well, haven't decided about the screen size (inches) yet, but I assume it will be either a 27" or a 32" model. But does screen size really matter for GPU of the choice? I've always thought it's the resolution that matters..

 

[LigTasm]

$500 is not a good spot in GPU market these days unless you buy used. You're looking at a RX 6750XT or 3060ti, neither of which is a very good value compared to the next card down at around $350. Something that will last a few years is going to run you $700+ with how high the prices have gotten.

 

[Coolio]

For $600 your best choices are 3080 12 GB or 3080 Ti.

Thank you for specific examples - appreciate that! What is the conceptual difference between Ti and non-Ti model? I mean in practice.. And is a 12Gb GPU noticeably better that a 10Gb one (for 1440p hi-detail and 4K mid-detail)?

Other choices if you don't care about RTX is a 6900XT or 6950XT for $600.

From the list of the games I have in mind, I can't really tell how many of them will really benefit from Ray Tracing. I like openworlds like Red Dead Redemption 2, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus, Elden Ring, etc.
What I've heard a couple of years ago - very few supported RT. If that has changed since 2020 and now much more games have it - makes sense, if not (and on top of that RT costs more than say 15% of the overall GPU price) - don't see much benefit in it.

Another point - is NVidia still the king, or AMD has catched up? My last impression was that NVidia was way ahead - with G-Sync benefits at the very least...

 

[LukeTbk]

Thank you for your reply, here are the answers:

1. Only new card
2. Not yet, but I am focused on a 144Hz, as 240Hz doesn't deliver so much difference (so far) compared to the amount of money it sucks from the pocket. This is the argument I've heard - can't confirm or deny it. What do you think?
3. Well, open worlds, definitely not multiplayer online games. You walk, solve riddles, sometimes shoot/fight. Something of that kind. Did that help somehow? An example of the few that grabbed my attention: Red Dead Redemption 2, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus, Elden Ring, etc.

Me when my monitor goes back to 60 hz (from 170) for some reason it is not obvious to the point that I go check if that the case not knowing in advance, it is quite personal the feeling, but for the type of game you want to play I would definitely stay at 120-144hz type, they are quite hard to run at 240hz and not the type that would necessarily gain a lot from.

When I look at new cards around that 500-600(with tax) price bracket:

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#X=43515,61410

$440 6700xt
$465 6750xt (or 440 if XFX speedster have not a no-no do not know the brand much)
$490 6800

If you are ready to go to $700 and do not mind large heat-power, there a 6950xt:
https://www.newegg.com/asrock-radeo...&ranSiteID=8BacdVP0GFs-C3u35yfTPnhyX8ztTspWQQ

With 2 free game on newegg, to have more than a 6950xt performance wise on the new market you need to go on the 7900xt/xtx level and probably quite out of it by now.

Are interesting if you a good (like being lucky to leave close to a microcenter) maybe there is good enough on location deal that could include some Nvidia options

 

[Coolio]

Something that will last a few years is going to run you $700+ with how high the prices have gotten.

Honestly, I tend more to buying smth that will last for 3-4 years and then upgrade together with CPU. Technologies evolve, right..? So $600 seems to be not bad - KickAssCop said I can have a 3080 12Gb for that (or a 3080 Ti).

 

[LukeTbk]

Honestly, I tend more to buying smth that will last for 3-4 years and then upgrade together with CPU. Technologies evolve, right..? So $600 seems to be not bad - KickAssCop said I can have a 3080 12Gb for that (or a 3080 Ti).

I mean maybe, but on microcenter website (even in available in store only search):
https://www.microcenter.com/search/search_results.aspx?N=&cat=&Ntt=3080&searchButton=search

No 3080 12gb and the 10gb does not go under $780, new high end Ampere is rough out there:
https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-...iler-more-cards-sold-than-rx7000-arc-combined

That German retailer sold has many (all 3080-3080ti-3090,etc...) has Arc A770 for an example

 

[LigTasm]

Honestly, I tend more to buying smth that will last for 3-4 years and then upgrade together with CPU. Technologies evolve, right..? So $600 seems to be not bad - KickAssCop said I can have a 3080 12Gb for that (or a 3080 Ti).

Yeah find one on sale or a 6900XT or something. Because the range from $400-$600 is full of overpriced crap that doesn't warrant the price. I got a brand new ASRock 6900XT OCF which is a great XTXH chip for $649 on sale brand new from Amazon so you can definitely find them. Just takes some patience.

 

[Coolio]

Reference cards are just that, the reference. I.e. this is the minimum (but often a little better than minimum) spec to build these. Founder Edition's are not the same as reference on the Nvidia side. They are usually built well, but

Sir Beregond thank you for such a detailed and informative comment - very helpful!
For card editions, I hear your explanation as (in a nutshell): Reference is in 90% a better choice, unless you want to o/c. Founder Ed. is for o/clockers on a tighter budget, AIB - is a solid choice if you want to torture every possible frame out of the card and be sure it's still stable.

You want higher bus widths at 4k (i.e. a 320-bit, 384-bit card) vs say a 256-bit which might be fine on 1440p, maybe some 4k if it has a large L3 or L2 cache. But a 192-bit bus would be 1080p only unless again it has a large L2 and L3 cache, then could do 1440p, but I wouldn't buy it for 4k.

Thank you for these grades - very handy! Which size of a L2/L3 cache can be called a large one (or at least the one to think of as a "sweet spot")?

Finally, I've heard GPUs can be slightly underclocked for more stability, since they are slightly factory-overclocked. They said it won't result in any *noticeable* decrease in productivity. Does that really make sense, what do you think?

 

[Sir Beregond]

Sir Beregond thank you for such a detailed and informative comment - very helpful!
For card editions, I hear your explanation as (in a nutshell): Reference is in 90% a better choice, unless you want to o/c. Founder Ed. is for o/clockers on a tighter budget, AIB - is a solid choice if you want to torture every possible frame out of the card and be sure it's still stable.


Thank you for these grades - very handy! Which size of a L2/L3 cache can be called a large one (or at least the one to think of as a "sweet spot")?

Finally, I've heard GPUs can be slightly underclocked for more stability, since they are slightly factory-overclocked. They said it won't result in any *noticeable* decrease in productivity. Does that really make sense, what do you think?

I never said reference is the best choice. Just said it was sort of the minimum viable product as approved by Nvidia/AMD. AIB's also use reference designs for some models, so simply being an AIB does not guarantee custom PCB design. You'll have to look at it per model/SKU. I wouldn't even say Founder's Edition is for overclockers as for example my 3080 Ti FE only has 2 8-pin (adapted to the Nvidia 12-pin) which limits my total power to 400W while many AIB models use 3 and have a higher power limit as a result. My OC potential is capped versus those cards. That said, the one advantage to my FE card is it is more compact, so it fits in my case. And generally the 30-series and 40-series FE cards have been quality boards.

Its not so much a sweet spot, more just saying the RDNA2 and RDNA3 and 40-series cards all use larger caches which does somewhat help with lower traditional memory bus widths, but only to a point. On AMD they call it "Infinity Cache" (which is like a large L3), while Nvidia just has a larger L2 cache on Lovelace. But like I said, that only helps to a point. For example, the RTX 4070 Ti with only a 192-bit bus, but extra L2, does do well in 1080p and 1440p, but definitely doesn't scale to 4K.

The better question to be asking at this point is what is your budget and what are you looking to do with a card, and what features do you want?

 

[KickAssCop]

If you are going to keep the card for 3-4 years then an Nvidia card with Ray tracing makes more sense.

You can look for used cards and don’t have to buy new. I sold my 3080 Ti for 650$ and it was less than a year old.

3080 12 GB and 3080 Ti 12 GB had less than 5% perf delta when I had them. I would take whichever is available at a cheaper price.

As for 6950XT or 6900XT, both are good cards but you will suffer in RT massively.

Nvidia is king of the hill with a 4090 starting at 1600$. If you stretch your budget to 1200$ you can go for a 4080.

Personally if I had a 600$ budget I would definitely try to get a 3080-3080 Ti or used 3090 for 700-750 bucks.

 

[xDiVolatilX]

There are 2 choices, a 3080Ti or a 4090. Pick your poison lol. I don't consider AMD cards because ray tracing is important to me.

 

[pavel]

For $600 your best choices are 3080 12 GB or 3080 Ti. There also might be some 3090 seller out there who might sell it for 700-750 bucks.
Other choices if you don't care about RTX is a 6900XT or 6950XT for $600.

OP has stated he only wants a new card but I think this is an excellent reply - if one is willing to consider a used card. These are the cards I would consider if upgrading from my 3060 - I think the prices look like it applies to ppl in the USA/USD - but, it's accurate in general to me as well. The problem is a lot of ppl want the moon for these older cards and they want a lot of $$ (probably, to apply to a new gen card purchase).

 

[GoodBoy]

Hi guys,

I did some research on GPUs a while ago and made kinda list of important criteria to consider when choosing the right GPU. Just want to double-check if these criteria are still valid, or possibly new ones appeared (due to tech. progress), so that I'm aware of them too.
Can you kindly comment please?

1. Reference, Founders Edition (FE) and Add-in board (AIB) are pretty similar in speed, so if budget allows its better to buy the Reference of the senior model, rather than pay more for FE/AIB of the same model. FE (with binned chips) also makes little sense if you're not planning to overclock it.
2. The more cores - the more data is pushed to VRAM. However, Nvidia and AMD have different architecture, so only "intra-brand" comparison of core # makes sense.
3. VRAM defines the amount of data delivered to the monitor: the higher - the more detalized and hi-res picture. 8Gb is enough for 1440p, 10Gb is good for 4K. [are these numbers still valid? I plan to play on a 144Hz monitor at 1440p/hi-settings or 4K/mid-settings where it makes more sense. CPU: Intel i7-13700, RAM: 32Gb, DDR5]
4. I assume GDDR5X is pretty outdated these days, so should I choose a GDDR6 or GDDR 6X VRAM? Does HBM still have a problem with interposer, which made it unrepairable? If not - should I prefer HBM (HBM2, HBM2e) over GDDR?
5. Are G-Sync and V-sync still nice things to have, or were they replaced with smth. more efficient?
6. What about other trendy technologies like DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling), Ray Tracing - after several years on the market, are they worth of the price paid for them? Any new ones to consider?

Will also highly appreciate your recommendations on the GPU that matches my config the best - from your expert view. The budget is up to $600. Can be a bit higher if this GPU will survive 1 CPU upgrade in 3-4 years, but maybe it makes more sense not to spend too much, but rather to upgrade GPU later to a newer model - together with the CPU...?

Thank you!

1. Starting with 3xxx, the Founders edition is a superior heatsink. Note: Reference =! Founders, and some AIB's will just use a reference board to speed up card production/costs. The 4xxx AIB card's are overengineered heatsink wise, but not all are created equal in the power delivery stages. It should be noted that for 4xxx, a 450W power target is fine, and you can undervolt or run a lower power target, and lose maybe 6% performance while saving half of the power. Power delivery info https://linustechtips.com/topic/1461611-rtx-4090-vrm-meta-analysis-and-feaib-comparison/
2. Partly valid. The 'cores' are really only completely comparable in the same brand AND generation. You can rough guess the same brands' cores gen to gen, but even those are not always completely comparable. So a 3070 to 3090, cores are generally comparable. 3070 to 4070, not as much.
3. I would say 16Gb minimum for 4k.
4. Anything new has GDDR6X I believe. HBM was only on AMD cards that were compute cards rebranded as Gaming cards. This gen AMD does not use HBM on Gaming cards.
5. You absolutely want G-Sync Compatible or Freesync Premium at a minimum in your LCD, the best is G-Sync Ultimate (original G-Sync rebranded to distinguish between the G-Sync Compatible) but this adds to the LCD cost, and only works on Nvidia GPU's 9xx or newer.
6. DLSS is pretty amazing, and most of the time there is no visible change to image quality. This varies by game. Raytracing looks pretty amazing, you would want to try that and decide for yourself. You want 3080 at a minimum for RT, or 4xxx or AMD's 7xxx. Some people think it isn't worth the cost, but there are a lot of games supporting it now, and practically any new AAA game will have RT support. You will spend $800 or more most likely to get a card with decent RT capability unless you go used.

 

[Deathmetal99]

Another alternative is to watch Amazon Warehouse. These are returns or items which the outer box was damaged in the warehouse and are inspected before being put up for sale. The items that have the biggest discount are those that had their boxes destroyed, so if you can find one you get a brand new item with just the outer box missing. Most items on there dont give a very compelling discount, but the rarer, destroyed box item's discount is quite substantial. They are covered by Amazon prime with the same return policy and also have the warranty intact. I picked up a 3080 12G for $580 and a Samsung Odyssey Neo g7 for $820. The Neo g7 is down to $1099 right now, but at the time they were $1299. Both were brand new sealed in the inner packaging with just the outer box gone.

 

[Coolio]

The better question to be asking at this point is what is your budget and what are you looking to do with a card, and what features do you want?

Well, like I said the budget is not more than $700 and I'm actually in Europe, so discounts/sellouts in American shops don't work for me, but it's OK - we have Amazon here too and some others, especially in Germany, so pricing should be pretty similar. The end-goal [simpliefied] is to be able to play @ 1440p on max settings and @ 4K on average (where this makes more sense than 1440p) and with a nicest possible picture in front of me (hence, questions about RT, DLSS and stuff).

I just checked our current prices for several cards mentioned in this thread (orange ones are alternatives which were not mentioned - I found them myself) and here's what I see:

• Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 Ti - $1300
• Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 10Gb - $800
• Nvidia GeForce RTX 3070 Ti - $680
• AMD Radeon RX 6900XT - $900
• AMD Radeon RX 6950XT - $900
• AMD Radeon RX 6800XT - $750

Both a 3080 and a 69xx series are beyond the budget, so I checked the videocardbenchmark.net website and used their G3D ranking (not sure whether it's synthetic test or not, but whatever) to choose something as close in performance as possible to those series, but for less money. Here's how a 3070 Ti and 6800 XT appeared on my radars. I tended more to AMD, since it had a slightly better G3D and definitey better "bang for a buck" parameter.

However, you guys say that:

As for 6950XT or 6900XT, both are good cards but you will suffer in RT massively.

You want 3080 at a minimum for RT, or 4xxx or AMD's 7xxx.

Which means I won't enjoy one of the most attractive technologies unless I rise my budget to ~$800-850. On the positive side is that AMD has RT (so it's not a Nvidia's unique feature), but when - on top of this unplanned budget increase - I look at the following recommendation:

I would say 16Gb minimum for 4k

.... everything seems to be even more sad, since I guess 16Gb+ cards will be not less that $900-1000, which is way above what I planned to spend.

This leads me to the thought, that maybe gaming PC is not the right direction for me at all - to be honest I'm already thinking of GeForce NOW these days. If I think of my gaming PC as of the investment of $2500 (with a $700 GPU), then this is equal to "GFN Premium + 50Gb internet connection" payment for 3.5 years. Even more so - with GFN Premium I will use their 4080 GPUs with all the blows 'n' whistles available, which I won't ever afford myself with a $2.5k budget.

 

[NightReaver]

I don't consider AMD cards because ray tracing is important to me.

Isn't the 7900xtx just as good at ray tracing as the 3080/3090?

 

[djstarfox]

.... everything seems to be even more sad, since I guess 16Gb+ cards will be not less that $900-1000, which is way above what I planned to spend.

This leads me to the thought, that maybe gaming PC is not the right direction for me at all - to be honest I'm already thinking of GeForce NOW these days. If I think of my gaming PC as of the investment of $2500 (with a $700 GPU), then this is equal to "GFN Premium + 50Gb internet connection" payment for 3.5 years. Even more so - with GFN Premium I will use their 4080 GPUs with all the blows 'n' whistles available, which I won't ever afford myself with a $2.5k budget.

As an example, consider the AMD 6800 XT. I found one for $580 tonight at NewEgg (within your budget).
Has your required 16GB for 4k textures.
Performance:
80-90 FPS on the newest games... so you'll want FreeSync technology.
120-150 FPS on older games...
Should perform well for several years, kept in a cool case.

Maybe I missed it, but I did not see ray tracing as a required feature for you.

As other have said, you can probably find good deals for less. A lightly used card is a valid choice too.

KickAssCop made some great points above too.

 

[Coolio]

Maybe I missed it, but I did not see ray tracing as a required feature for you.

You didn't: I analyze situation "on-the-fly" - reading comments, comparing with alternatives (incl. GFN, consoles), etc. When I see the obvious disbalance, it annoys me. Paying $3000 upfront (with a $800-1000 GPU with RT support) compared to a monthly payment of $40 is a vivid example of such disbalance (for me).

As other have said, you can probably find good deals for less. A lightly used card is a valid choice too.

I don't buy used things. Not that it's bad or good, just my philosophy. Damaged packaging is ok, but such deals are more widespread in the US (due to Amazon's huge volumes and marketshare in e-commerce of 10-12% if I remember correctly), while I'm in Europe.

@KickAssCop made some great points above too.

He definitely did and I appreciate that (as anyone's valuable comment), but this is life: with my budget gaming PC config will be more of a compromise than I can accept psychologically. Should a 16Gb with RT cost $500-600 - I would have bought it, but now, that I know (and learn more about) GFN, even that I'm not sure of - since GFN sounds really competitive. Kinda "Uberization" of gaming HW resources. Pretty cool.