K I'll do a list tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by InSanity
Printable View
K I'll do a list tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by InSanity
yea i have been waiting for a good GPU list to come out to see what i can get. I would really like the new gen but RSA prices dam i dont know if my wallet can handle it
please do. I would also like to see the list when the new GPU from both amd and nvidia arrive or at least pre order pricing is availableQuote:
Originally Posted by The Joker
Uhm, I think the point of the article was to list the cheapest cards available locally. You know, "value" + "best" + blah blah.
Just saying.
Let me preface the following by saying this: I have nothing but the utmost respect for [MENTION=21]The Joker[/MENTION] and his advice on anything PC related. You have shown me nothing by incredible kindness, sincerity and assistance since the very first moment we spoke. The following is NOT BY ANY MEANS an attack against you or anyone else. The following is merely my observations and understandings based on how the article was written and how the list of cards was determined. The list, according to my understanding, is a fair and correct list, but let me get into the details.
It seems all the cards are ranked and listed based on their high Passmark Value Score, which Passmarks calculates and updates on a daily basis based on thousands on Passmark performance tests versus the Dollar price of the card. Thus, a card with a higher Passmark Value score will have more graphical power per dollar spent. All based on actual tests from within Passmark. How accurate Passmark is can probably be debated, but at least it gives an indication as to the value of each card, and as a catious search on the web showed me, one of the best ways of determining best bang for your buck.
Passmark also seems to ignore differences in manufacturer types, thus averaging out the performances of the different manufacturer cards and giving a total average performance score per card.
So we are left 10 cards, all with some of the highest performance per dollar calculations according to Passmark, making them some of the best value for money cards you can buy. If we compare the list of cards in the article, with what Joker shared in another thread on the forum, we see that all his listed cards has chipsets that feature in this list, namely the GTX 960, GTX 970 and R9 380. Furthermore, there is a difference of 5% in price between the cards listed by the Joker and within the MyGaming list. For the 960, his lists is showing the price as cheaper, and the other cards are 5% more expensive. Now, my argument is, is the cards listed by the Joker 5% better performing cards to warrant their prices, and will a consumer, looking at a PC's each with one of the listed cards in really notice the difference?
Then, the highest rated card in the list on MyGaming is the Geforce GTX 950, a card that retails at one location for R3036, and has a Passmark score of 5252. The next logical step after this card is the GTX 960, retails from Joker's list as R3870 with a Passmark score of 5938. That is a jump of 27.4% in price, with a 13.1% jump in Passmark performance. Does the jump in price justify the jump in performance, bearing in mind that this is an objective view of comparing the cards and not a subjective feeling? Personally, I would, looking at these figures, knowing that my budget is tight and that I need to get the best value I possibly can, I would settle for the GTX 950. It makes logical sense based on the scores and facts put in front of me. Is the 960 better, of course, but hey, I am a budget conscious consumer, and if the math and Passmark scores shows that I would get better bang for my bucks from the 950, it is the better value card to buy.
Again I will say, this is my understanding of how the article was put together, which makes sense, and conveys the correct message. My findings are based on how I would imagine the writer went about getting the info and deciding which cards to be ranked here. Should this whole methodology be flawed and incorrect, please let me know, and let us all know what is a better way of objectively determining the value of GPU's. Maybe what comes out of that will prove even more valuable to readers, lurkers and members for the future.
SOURCE
This article isn't misleading, I agree. I will say that it lacks information though. Only giving a price, passmark score and price/passmark, although informative-ish, leaves a lot to be desired.Quote:
Originally Posted by DieGrootHammer
A less well informed person, or someone who has been out of the PC scene for a while won't have a clue what they are looking at, apart from cost. Can it play games at FHD? If so, at max settings?
I like Tom's Hardware's Best Graphics Card for the Money article that they update each month for this very reason.
Best Graphics Cards For The Money
They explain choices, give some information about the cards, state which resolution you can comfortably use the card for, etc.
I just think they could have put perhaps a little bit more effort into the article.
[MENTION=9789]DieGrootHammer[/MENTION]
Yoh oom you write a lot lol
I'll reply in full tomorrow morning. The main reason I got annoyed with this article is the fact that they use passmark (I can't stand this shit) and the fact that the list is all over the place, with old generation cards that are barely available or aren't available at all. I also have to ask myself why isn't Rebeltech listed? Does the author have an issue with them? They are almost always cheaper and have fantastic service.
So it looks like the article was put together hastily.
Edit: I'll do a full on proper list tomorrow and go into a full explanation for each choice.
I'll also make sure to add proper benchmark numbers and not just passmark....
And here I agree. Though it stands to reason the info is in the article, unfortunately spoon feeding info is needed when talking about certain topics, like PC hardware comparisons and lists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blazzok
Urgh I'm in study mode, so writing and research and stuff like this seems to be bubbling out of me of late, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker
But you make a fair point. The list does include cards that does seem rather old for the company it keeps, and the question about Rebel Tech is a perfectly valid one. I guess the incredible rate at which MyGaming has been pumping out articles as of late (which, but the way I am not complaining about, in fact I think it's fantastic), may have had an impact on some additional research time as to the different retailers. But again, I guess the main aim of the article was to use the Passmark ratings as reference, and get a single local price point as reference as well. Perhaps my Assimilation personality is over-analysis this way too much though, which is a distinct possibility.
May I ask what's wrong with Passmark? And in your reply, can you give us a guide as to which other way GPU's can be objectively compared performance wise. Perhaps we can do our own little Performance/Value calculations focusing more on Rand/Performance ratio's....
Passmark = Rubbish synthetic benchmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by DieGrootHammer
It means nothing in the real world. Which is where we are lol
If you're going to include a form of benchmark to show a gpu's performance then use a gaming benchmark. Yes this would take considerable research but it can be done.
a Good example of my issue with Passmark is the GTX970 vs R9 390.
They are both fantastic value for money cards. They are fairly equal when it comes to in game performance. Some times the GTX970 is a lot faster and visa versa. Yet in passmark the GTX970 is rated much much higher.
I can find other examples of this as well but I'm not going to bother lol I honestly can't stand synthetic benchmarks.
An article like this can be done extremely well and in depth but that's not what My Gaming is going for. They're punting out articles at an insane rate and with such a rate comes the whole quality vs quantity thing.