Time to change GPU performance categories?

[Lord Risky]

Seems to me the Budget/Mid/High labels have become somewhat outdated with the latest 14/16nm process GPU's. The 1060 and 480 have significantly closed the performance gap between the (Budget Group) $250 price point, the (Mid-Level) $429 1070, and (High) $600+ 1080.

All three of these groups can completely max out every setting in even the very latest games, at 1080p. All three of these groups can even play the very latest games at 1440p, albeit at different settings.

Perhaps we should start addressing these three groups as Tiers instead of retail price terms. Tiers 1,2,&,3 is one idea. Whatever, as long as the cards are being evaluated by not only price but also accounting for significant price differences.

Eh, just a though...............

 

[limitedaccess]

Those are arbitrary categories but it is still better to set them based upon something ore constant like price.

Software performance requirements change over time and not even linearly. What you consider a 1080p capable card could actually very well change in the next 6 months which won't even be halfway through its lifecycle.

Previous $250 (and even cheaper) cards have been able to max settings at the mainstream resolutions of there day as well but performance requirements shift over time. 14/16nm isn't what is enabling this but a combination of hardware performance going up while software performance requirements have yet to shift.

 

[chenw]

1060 has not yet been released, so stating that it closed the gap between X70 and X60 is a little premature at this point, especially considering the following:

The gap between GTX 960 and 970 has actually widened compared to Kepler:

For example, from TPU's summary, a stock 970 is over 50% better than a factory OC'ed 960

ASUS GTX 960 STRIX OC 2 GB Review

A stock 770 is less than 20% more powerful than OC'ed 760, and even comparing it to double cored 780 (760 is half of a 780), the difference is only about 40%

ASUS GTX 760 DirectCU II OC 2 GB Review

So if anything, the gap widened dramatically with Maxwell (970 is further ahead of 960 than 780 was ahead of 760).

TPU unfortunately did not do a 560 review, but with the performance difference between 4xx and 5xx, I'd guesstimate that 560 follows similar trend to 760.

 

[Lord Risky]

The 960 could run games at 1080p but at low/mid settings. The upcoming 1060 will crush 1080p games at any setting. The 290/290X and 390/390X can also crush any current game at 1080p, but all of them are/were way more expensive than the $240 RX480.....not to mention volcano heat etc etc

 

[chameleoneel]

Seems to me the Budget/Mid/High labels have become somewhat outdated with the latest 14/16nm process GPU's. The 1060 and 480 have significantly closed the performance gap between the (Budget Group) $250 price point, the (Mid-Level) $429 1070, and (High) $600+ 1080.

All three of these groups can completely max out every setting in even the very latest games, at 1080p. All three of these groups can even play the very latest games at 1440p, albeit at different settings.

Perhaps we should start addressing these three groups as Tiers instead of retail price terms. Tiers 1,2,&,3 is one idea. Whatever, as long as the cards are being evaluated by not only price but also accounting for significant price differences.

Eh, just a though...............

Nah. the $200 - $300 gray area due to deals and time...is the mid level. I mean, that's been 1080p sweet spot, for about 4 years. And the new GPUs have just refreshed that spot. I got my 7870 for $200 in September 2012. Its only started to weaken at 1080p, with newer games in the past year or so.

$300 + has been higher than "mid level".

 

[Daniel_Chang]

Here's how I see the tiers based on current and the existing prior generation. This is based solely on performance. Cards within a tier offer "ballpark performance" and are listed in order from fastest to slowest within that tier. I primarily used THIS to compose this list (280x used to ballpark the 380x). To place the Nano I used THIS. This is based on reference/stock speeds and does not count overclocking or factory OCs, both of which favor Nvidia. This also doesn't have a bias towards DX12/Vulkan which could favor AMD going forward.

NOTE: GTX 1060 and RX 470/460 projected due to known specs and imminent release. Further out cards like the GTX 1050 would be a premature addition to this list.

1 - GTX 1080

2 - GTX 1070, Titan X, GTX 980 ti, R9 Fury X

3 - R9 Fury, R9 Nano, R9 390X, GTX 980 (GTX 1060 unknown at this point but could be within this tier)

4 - R9 390, RX 480, GTX 970 (GTX 1060 unknown at this point but could be within this tier)

5 - R9 380x (RX 470 unknown at this point but could be within this tier)

6 - R9 380, GTX 960

7 - GTX 950 (RX 460 unknown at this point but could be within this tier)

8 - R7 370 (RX 460 unknown at this point but could be within this tier)

How to use this chart:

Find a budget that works for you, and get the fastest card within your budget. IE, the GTX 950 (Tier 7) and R7 370 (Tier 8) are typically the same price. Don't buy the R7 370 unless Doom is the only game that you play.

Other considerations are features and power draw. The R9 390 "wins" tier 4 in performance, but the 480/970 are close while offering considerably better power efficiency and HDMI 2.0. So even though it's faster, I think the 480/970 are a better buy if price being equal.

 

[MangoSeed]

I define "mid-range" as any card that can run the latest games at medium settings at the most common resolution (1080p). Using that as a starting point you can then figure out budget, high-end, enthusiast etc.

 

[Daniel_Chang]

I define "mid-range" as any card that can run the latest games at medium settings at the most common resolution (1080p). Using that as a starting point you can then figure out budget, high-end, enthusiast etc.

You're not wrong. It's just that everyone has a different definition of what is considered "low/mid/high," and because of those different definitions, you get different results. That's why in my list above I broke them down by performance tiers. And while it would be easy to say something like, "Tiers abc are high, tiers xyz are low, and the rest mid," this would change if you incorporate more cards from current (940? 360?) gen or prior generations. And that would further distort what is mid or high.

 

[Presbytier]

Seems to me the Budget/Mid/High labels have become somewhat outdated with the latest 14/16nm process GPU's. The 1060 and 480 have significantly closed the performance gap between the (Budget Group) $250 price point, the (Mid-Level) $429 1070, and (High) $600+ 1080.

All three of these groups can completely max out every setting in even the very latest games, at 1080p. All three of these groups can even play the very latest games at 1440p, albeit at different settings.

Perhaps we should start addressing these three groups as Tiers instead of retail price terms. Tiers 1,2,&,3 is one idea. Whatever, as long as the cards are being evaluated by not only price but also accounting for significant price differences.

Eh, just a though...............

No, they haven't. With every new generation, the top and bottom both move up. The rate of movement here at the bottom has just been larger than the top. We get leaps like this every few years and it will probably settle right back to the usual performance gaps as display technology decreases in cost.

 

[Warstopper]

I think it would make more sense to categorize them based on the resolution they best serve. You then rank them based on level of detail in each of the resolutions.

1080P - Max: RX 480, 1060, 980, 970
1080P - Medium: RX 470, 1050, 960
1080P - Low: RX 460, 950

1440P - Max: 980Ti, Fury X, Fury, 1080, 1070, Titan Z, Nano
1440P - Medium: R9 390X, R9 390, RX 480, 980
1440P - Low: 970, 1060

4K - Max: Good Luck
4K - Medium: Radeon Pro Duo, Titan X
4K - Low: 1080, 1070

I think if we classified them in this way, people purchasing the cards would be able to choose based on what they are wanting to do with the card they purchase. I also realize that everyone will feel differently so please use the cards I choose as an example, not as how I feel they should fit into the chart. I tried to get them close to where they perform but I also know that everyone feels different about the level performance.

 

[NKD]

1060 has not yet been released, so stating that it closed the gap between X70 and X60 is a little premature at this point, especially considering the following:

The gap between GTX 960 and 970 has actually widened compared to Kepler:

For example, from TPU's summary, a stock 970 is over 50% better than a factory OC'ed 960

ASUS GTX 960 STRIX OC 2 GB Review

A stock 770 is less than 20% more powerful than OC'ed 760, and even comparing it to double cored 780 (760 is half of a 780), the difference is only about 40%

ASUS GTX 760 DirectCU II OC 2 GB Review

So if anything, the gap widened dramatically with Maxwell (970 is further ahead of 960 than 780 was ahead of 760).

TPU unfortunately did not do a 560 review, but with the performance difference between 4xx and 5xx, I'd guesstimate that 560 follows similar trend to 760.

I think you totally missed his point. He wasn't talking about pure performance. He was saying almost 250 dollar cards being able to max out 1080p. 1070 does the same and also does 1440p but his primary focus being 1080p. Obviously 1070 is going to much smoother experience. I think his point is more about game play experience at each price point.

 

[Dayaks]

I must have a completely different version of "Max"ing out a game because I remember a Titan X couldn't max FC4 at 1080p. I have to chuckle at people saying the 480/970 can max 1080p.

But yeah, that definition will vary person to person.

I prefer to just use the GPU die size. 1080 is mid, 1080ti hopefully maxes it and will be considered high end to me. In the end it doesn't really matter... What matter is your budget and/or what performance is acceptable.

 

[jbc029]

I must have a completely different version of "Max"ing out a game because I remember a Titan X couldn't max FC4 at 1080p. I have to chuckle at people saying the 480/970 can max 1080p.

But yeah, that definition will vary person to person.

I prefer to just use the GPU die size. 1080 is mid, 1080ti hopefully maxes it and will be considered high end to me. In the end it doesn't really matter... What matter is your budget and/or what performance is acceptable.

There are plenty examples of maxed 1080p in FC4. 1440p is a different story, but 1080p wasn't ever a great challenge. A 980 could almost push max at 1440p for FC4, let alone a Titan X.

 

[Dayaks]

There are plenty examples of maxed 1080p in FC4. 1440p is a different story, but 1080p wasn't ever a great challenge. A 980 could almost push max at 1440p for FC4, let alone a Titan X.

Look again. There's no way you do 4x MSAA + all features on and hold 60fps on a 980 at 1080p. Nevermind I like my 1080p with DSR, but even without DSR, it isnt' even close to holding 60.

Anti-Aliasing Performance - Far Cry 4 Graphics Features Performance Review

IIRC it actually got more demanding after that review too as they patched hair works.