In this month's market analysis, we discuss Nvidia's new GeForce GTX Titan, PowerColor's Tahiti LE-based Radeon HD 7870, and a number of price fluctuations. If you've been holding off on an upgrade, now might be the best time to buy.
Detailed graphics card specifications and reviews are great—that is, if you have the time to do the research. But at the end of the day, what a gamer needs is the best graphics card within a certain budget.
So, if you don’t have the time to research the benchmarks, or if you don’t feel confident enough in your ability to pick the right card, then fear not. We at Tom’s Hardware have come to your aid with a simple list of the best gaming cards offered for the money.
May Updates:
Since last month's update, AMD launched its Radeon HD 7990 to retail (Ed.: Though, more than two weeks after the introduction, there still aren't any available to purchase online). While PowerColor, HIS, and Asus all came up with their own dual-Tahiti cards, AMD held off on its own official design, presumably to "get it right." The outcome is quite a bit more polished. The Radeon HD 7990's triple-fan cooling solution is much quieter than the Radeon HD 6990, which was crazy-loud. Peak power consumption is the same, at 375 W, and compute performance is best-in-class.
Unfortunately, the card has a load-dependent whine related to its high current draw. Moreover, those three fans blow all of the board's waste heat back into your chassis. And then there's the fact that AMD wants $1,000 for it. We love the work AMD is doing with its bundle, but at that price point, and given more compelling competition, we simply cannot recommend the 7990 right now.
How about pricing? Only a few cards are different this month. The Radeon HD 7770 is a little cheaper than last month. As a result, this $115 mainstream board gets its recommendation back. Conversely, it seems like everyone caught on to the Tahiti-based Radeon HD 7870, and its price is going up slowly. Now it's selling for $250. Also, the Radeon HD 7850 2 GB is up $10 to $195. That's the opposite direction we want to see it go, given competition from the $170 GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 2 GB. The Radeon HD 7950 Boost is also a little more expensive at $310. And the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost 1 GB is $160, priced too closely to the 2 GB version to retain its recommendation.
As for upcoming products, we're hearing a lot more about a GeForce GTX 780 and 770. Fudzilla reports that the former will be a cut-down GK110-based product, while the GTX 770 may include the 680's GK104 graphics processor, perhaps running at higher clock rates. It's also probable that other new products will show up in the next few weeks, particularly with Computex right around the corner.
Some Notes About Our Recommendations
A few simple guidelines to keep in mind when reading this list:
- This list is for gamers who want to get the most for their money. If you don’t play games, then the cards on this list are more expensive than what you really need. We've added a reference page at the end of the column covering integrated graphics processors, which is likely more apropos.
- The criteria to get on this list are strictly price/performance. We acknowledge that recommendations for multiple video cards, such as two Radeon cards in CrossFire mode or two GeForce cards in SLI, typically require a motherboard that supports CrossFire or SLI and a chassis with more space to install multiple graphics cards. They also require a beefier power supply compared to what a single card needs, and will almost certainly produce more heat than a single card. Keep these factors in mind when making your purchasing decision. In most cases, if we have recommended a multiple-card solution, we try to recommend a single-card honorable mention at a comparable price point for those who find multi-card setups undesirable.
- Prices and availability change on a daily basis. We can’t base our decisions on always-changing pricing information, but we can list some good cards that you probably won’t regret buying at the price ranges we suggest, along with real-time prices from our PriceGrabber engine, for your reference.
- The list is based on some of the best U.S. prices from online retailers. In other countries or at retail stores, your mileage will most certainly vary.
- These are new card prices. No used or open-box cards are in the list; they might represent a good deal, but it’s outside the scope of what we’re trying to do.
Nothing to fix.
APUs are, indeed, assigned Radeon-branded graphics chipsets.
Similarly, Intel graphics is listed by the graphics chipset, not the CPU that carries it.
Thanks for the December update! You're "For the money" guides are a staple hardware read for me every month! Keep up the good work!
First of all, i would like to note that the comments to the November 20th article are showing up on the December article instead of the December ones...
OF OTHER NOTES:
1....
I suggest adding Honorable mentions for Triinity APUs in the low end market. If someone already has a Radeon 7660D on their APU, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to buy a 7670 DDR3. They would be much better served by saving up for a $100 card or waiting for the prices of 7750 cards to fall. Trinity (and to some extent )Ivy Bridge HD 4000), are truly kissing the heels of the low end discrete market, and are vastly superior than virtually all of the crap floating around the ~$50 price point on Newegg. Although detail settings and resolutions will most definitely have to be lowered somewhat, sticking with these on-die APU solutions are compelling for Casual gamers that can't afford more than a $50 card.
In the near future it will be increasingly difficult to ignore discussing APUs as they continue to get better and better. I can't wait to see how well Haswell holds up.
2....
The Radeon 7990 doesn't seem to show up on the Hierarchy chart nor mentioned in the $375 and up section. I can only find 2 Powercolor variants, but they are both in stock. For some reason, i can only find a modest amount of press coverage on Radeon 7990 overall.
And there is no honor in running intergrated graphics/APU's at this point. Hense no honourable mention...
As for Haswell. As an enthusiast I'd love for the i7-2700K/3770K successor to have weak integrated graphics. Weaker than HD3000, have a TDP of ~110 watts and use fluxless solder in it's construction! Sadly though, I know that's unlikely to happen.
Take note of how, in the Best Gaming CPU series, the AMD FX-4170 is also tied with the Intel Core i3-3220 even though the latter is superior in terms of power consumption and possibly plain (gaming) performance.
On a side note, aw... Even the comments posted after this Dec. update were wiped out.
Thanks for adding it toms. It was added as "Integrated: HD 7660D" which will not be enough information for people to properly recognize and consider it.
It needs to be identified as "HD 7660D - A10 5800K APU." This name change would be appreciated.
Good, I see that "Integrated: HD 7660D" was added 4 tiers above Intel's best integrated, but it needs to be listed as "HD 7660D - A10 5800K APU" so that people can properly recognize and consider it. The change would be appreciated TH.
APU's are not "Radeon" products, so a new column is needed, entitled "AMD."
Then in the appropriate tier, list each AMD APU
in the same format as this example: "HD 7660D - A10 5800K APU."
Nothing to fix.
APUs are, indeed, assigned Radeon-branded graphics chipsets.
Similarly, Intel graphics is listed by the graphics chipset, not the CPU that carries it.
Plenty to fix, actually.
Nothing similar about it, and Intel CPU's are listed - 3 of the top 5 on the chart.
Intel's column products are listed in great detail, for example:
"Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i3 5x0, Core i5-6x0)"
So the name intel is listed TWICE, in the column title and in each and every single product name.
AMD's column, oh wait there is no AMD column...
Radeon's column products are listed as such:
"Integrated: HD 7660D" - with no mention of "AMD" or "APU" ever, at all!
The name AMD is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
"APU" is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
Come on, this is ridiculous...
I really appreciate the charts, but this needs to be fixed.
Don, is what I said above really the reason you still recommended the GTX 560 SE? Some people are wondering.
"Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i5-6x1), 2000"
That's a direct quote from the Hierarchy Chart.
The name intel appears twice, both in the column name and for each intel product.
The name AMD does not appear at all, there's no AMD column and no AMD product is labeled AMD!
For example, "Integrated: HD 7560D" does not contain the proper information. It should be listed as "AMD HD 7660D (A10 5800K APU)" for it to be in the same format as the intel listings.
The name APU (and AMD) does not appear at all, not anywhere in the entire Hierarchy Chart!
Nothing similar about it, and Intel CPU's are listed - 3 of the top 5 on the chart.
Intel's column products are listed in great detail, for example:
"Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i3 5x0, Core i5-6x0)"
So the name intel is listed TWICE, in the column title and in each and every single product name.
AMD's column, oh wait there is no AMD column...
Radeon's column products are listed as such:
"Integrated: HD 7660D" - with no mention of "AMD" or "APU" ever, at all!
The name AMD is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
"APU" is listed NEVER, ZERO, not in any column title and not for any AMD product.
Come on, this is ridiculous...
I really appreciate the charts, but this needs to be fixed.
Maybe Intel's name is listed to differentiate its HD's from the Radeon HD's? You know, because AMD's Radeon HD's are really iconic and people might confuse Intel's HD graphics for them in the chart. Plus, Intel doesn't really give a name like "GeForce" or "Radeon" to its graphics so...
The "D" or "G" after the APU graphics' names are there to denote that they are APU graphics. (Some of) Intel's GPU's are technically what APU's are as well I think. Should they be denoted as well as such?
"Integrated: Intel HD Graphics (Core i5-6x1), 2000"
That's a direct quote from the Hierarchy Chart.
The name intel appears twice, both in the column name and for each intel product.
The name AMD does not appear at all, there's no AMD column and no AMD product is labeled AMD!
For example, "Integrated: HD 7560D" does not contain the proper information. It should be listed as "AMD HD 7660D (A10 5800K APU)" for it to be in the same format as the intel listings.
The name APU (and AMD) does not appear at all, not anywhere in the entire Hierarchy Chart!
I posted in the 5 year old review of the Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MB video card. I hope I get some advice of you guys! I was about to post that here too, but didn't want to re-post, may not be good.
But my basic questions were: How come a 5 year old video card is only 9 tiers down below the more recent and super powerful 7970 GHz Ed.? (From this Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart) And also it is 8 tiers above the pretty cool Intel HD Graphics 4000?
Does that mean its specs and 512 MB are enough to work with media and play nicely most nowadays games? (at medium-high settings?) I know that does not only depend on the video card, but that chart suggest that.
Please read the rest here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-8800-gts-512-mb,1743.html
Thank you very much!
- L.
I'll say. You could complain about the choice of cards. You could complain about the analysis of each product. You could even go as low as complaining about grammar. Instead, you chose to complain that AMD is not listed in the column headers of a table.
You, sir, are the most petty person I've run into all day.
I posted in the 5 year old review of the Nvidia's GeForce 8800 GTS 512 MB video card. I hope I get some advice of you guys! I was about to post that here too, but didn't want to re-post, may not be good.
But my basic questions were: How come a 5 year old video card is only 9 tiers down below the more recent and super powerful 7970 GHz Ed.? (From this Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart) And also it is 8 tiers above the pretty cool Intel HD Graphics 4000?
Does that mean its specs and 512 MB are enough to work with media and play nicely most nowadays games? (at medium-high settings?) I know that does not only depend on the video card, but that chart suggest that.
Please read the rest here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-8800-gts-512-mb,1743.html
Thank you very much!
- L.
I'll have a shot at your inquiry, though if I'm wrong, I bet someone else could correct me.
IMO, the chart is very general and "rough." As I know, the performance of some of the cards listed are pretty much approximations/educated guesses. Not all of them have been tested under the same benchmarks so there's no perfect comparison.
Also, you may very well be aware of how older generation cards don't support some technologies like DirectX 11 for one. I don't think this chart really takes that into account. As for the RAM amount, you may already know this but I'll say it anyway, as I know, how much RAM needed is highly dependent on the resolution and anti-aliasing levels you use, aside from a lot of other things like the game itself.
So anyway, since this chart is very general in nature (and possibly could use updates with older cards, though that's too much to ask for I would say) you'd have to take other factors into consideration like those I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
BTW, 9/8 tiers are pretty substantial in terms of a performance difference I think. Also, each tier might not represent that equal of differences in performance, though I'm not totally sure. I wouldn't know if the 8800 GTS is misplaced on the chart, but if it isn't then it looks like it was quite the performer during its time. A good performing card's merit could carry over through multiple generations past its own.
I hope I helped, but feel free to say if not...