We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
Recently found u/Voodoo2-SLI's "Meta Review" series over on Reddit; essentially it combines the tests of most major review sites into an average score, and then uses that to review new cards and processors. His post about the RX 5700 series in particular is incredibly different from the results shown in the LI chart (though his other reviews are also quite different from this chart, this one is simply the most extreme): https://www.reddit.com/r/ha...
Could you specify how the results in that thread are incredibly different from what is present in the chart above? As far as I can tell, the post doesn't show the RX 5700 XT matching or beating the RTX 2070 Super or GTX 1080 Ti in even a single benchmark---so it wouldn't move up a row. The RX 5700 does appear to beat the GTX 1080, but the easiest way to represent that in the chart would be to move the 1080 down one notch---not the 5700 up (although, either way, we're talking about a movement of one place, which doesn't strike me as particularly incredible).
Do you just mean because the RX 5700 XT appears to be at the exact same height in the chart as the RTX 2060 Super despite being ~7% better? Because that's just a matter of the text being centered in each cell. This chart is only meant to provide straightforward, rough, at-a-glance tier groupings of GPUs. We put it together in this way so that folks could get a clear general idea of where a GPU falls relative to all other GPUs, without having to sift through data or graphs. But the unfortunate corollary to the as-simply-formatted-as-possible approach to this page is that it can't communicate fine-grain, minute details. For those, other resources must be consulted.
Edit: I did end up making the 1080 change described above, and it also shifted the formatting of its former row so that the 5700 XT appears slightly higher on the vertical axis than the 2060 Super; two birds with one stone, eh?
By incredibly different I don't mean that it's like 30% off on one card or something, just that it shows notable differences across the board. Radeon VII being worse than the 2070S (in fact closer to the 5700XT), the 1660 being better than the 590, the 1060 3GB being nearly identical to the 570 (though this one seems to have limited data due to no one caring about the 1060 3GB lol), and the 1050Ti being dramatically worse than the 1650 are the largest discrepancies, if you prefer specifics.
I do prefer specifics! I'll look into each of those examples and make adjustments to the chart where appropriate. Thank you for taking the time to list them out.
Edit: Okay, looks like most of those suggestions check out and will be implemented into the chart to some degree. But the 1060 3GB and the 1650 won't be moving much. For the 1060 3GB, the 4 data points in that user's meta review are just too scant to make such a big change based on them; so I'm still leaning more heavily on Userbenchmark's rankings for that card. For the 1650, their findings have it quite close to being directly between the 1050 Ti and the 1060 3GB, which is essentially where we have it already.
As a final question, how did you guys estimate the performance of consoles relative to video cards? I always find incredibly conflicting results across the internet on that topic, so I'm curious about how it's done around here.
We've encountered the same issues as you. Basically, it will never be a perfect comparison due to driver differences and software development environment differences. But we do our best, by collating info from as many sites as we can---and then averaging that together with our own manual comparison of the specific technical specs of the console's GPU (number of cores, type of cores, speed of cores, and amount of VRAM) to those of extant discrete GPUs.
The R9 280X seems to be slightly misplaced as it's a rebranded 7970 ghz edition
I see what you're saying, but on closer inspection it's actually the RX 560 which was slightly misplaced by being above the 280X and the 280. (The 280X is in fact slightly less powerful than the 7970, having slower clock speeds.) At any rate, row should be fixed soon!
Very confused on the placement of the 5700 series; have yet to see a single benchmark saying anything other than the fact that the 5700 is better than the Vega 64, not worse.
You're right---the Vega 64 has now been moved down slightly to a more appropriate spot; the page should update in the next day or two. Thanks!
Will you be adding the rx 5700 cards?
Yes, we will be adding the new AMD GPUs within a week or so---after reviewing many benchmarks.
Why is not the RTX Titan listed on top?
So, much like the Titan V before it, the Titan RTX has an extremely poor price-to-perforance ratio and is not optimized for gaming. But those are just the reasons why it wasn't a big priority to add it immediately; in actuality, it should still be added regardless, and I will personally add it to the chart soon.
The GTX 1660 (which is different than the GTX 1660 Ti) needs to be added.
Right you are! I must've skipped it accidentally. It has now been added, and the change should go live in the near future (likely within about a week, alongside some other updates).
Dear moderator; may I suggest that right now; a separate column for INTEL chips alone be created? Even in its current form; there are some like me who're not familiar with AMD's product lineup and cant tell the difference between INTEL and AMD in the columns. Also; I believe within the year (2019 at time of this comment); INTEL should be entering the GPU fray soon and you'll need to update this charts accordingly to accomodate them.....
I'm not sure I understand the request. There are currently no Intel GPUs listed in the chart above, except for integrated GPUs mentioned in the comments of some cells near the lower right. That said, if/when Intel releases GPUs that are competitive in the market, then they will be added to this chart---and, yes, may even get their own column.
My mistake. When reading the chart; i see under the AMD column models with the HDxxxx designations. I WAS ASSUMING those were INTEL models. Based on your feedback; i guess those are OLD AMD model designations that i'm not familiar with. I assumed so because in 2017 i bought a Motherboard with intel graphics and the labeling of their cards starts with the HD xxxxx designation as well. So i assumed it was by design INTEL was mixed into the AMD column.......
Ah, that's understandable. Yep, the HD ____ cards in the second column are indeed AMD options.
Oh my fucking God your site is useless no fucking vega how lazy are you do your research and get some amd cards up there
your a butthole idiot
Vitriol aside, you seem to be mistaken. The chart above features both low-end Vega iGPUs and high-end RX Vega discrete GPUs. If you are unable to locate them while scrolling, I would recommend using the 'CTRL + F' function of your browser to find the relevant term.
The GTX 1070 seems to perform worse than the 1660Ti in most benchmarks I've seen, yet it's two tiers higher. Not sure if the 1660Ti should be moved up or the other down, but there certainly seem to be some inconsistencies around this area of the chart.
Having the 2015 Titan X in its own row at that point definitely makes the 1070 and 1660 Ti seem further apart than they are in reality (they're very close together in real-world performance), so I will definitely shift things around at that point to make things more clear. That said, the head-to-head benchmarks I've seen for those two (such as this one, this one, and this one) either have them trading blows from game to game, or have the 1070 coming out slightly ahead overall due to its higher VRAM capacity and additional processing cores (despite its lower boost clock).
The R9 290 and GTX 970 perform almost identically. As Such I believe the R9 290 should be moved up one slot. https://youtu.be/nty9Hcy1jaU
Right you are! Thank you for pointing this out. I have made a few adjustments around that level in the chart; they should go live within a day or two.
The GTX 1660 seems to be missing from the table.
What gpu would you say is "VR Ready"? A constant 90fps in vr games. Thanks!!
Well, 'VR games' is a very broad and varied category, which makes it difficult to make a recommendation for a consistent 90+ FPS without skewing towards higher power. That said, you would likely need something about at the level of the RTX 2070 or better for that. For more information, you should also check out our big guide article on building a PC for VR gaming (if you haven't already).
Hi, I'm trying to build a PC for 1440p 144Hz, specifically for PUBG @ competitive settings. I'm most likely going to need to pickup a RTX 2080 Ti. Could you add a row for 1440p 144Hz? Thanks :)
Yes, we would recommend an RTX 2080 Ti for that situation. But at 1440p with max settinsg, even a 2080 Ti can not guarantee a consistent 144+ FPS (closer to 110-140 FPS). But if "competitive settings" means low for most settings other than a few key options, or even just low enough to get to your FPS goal---then you should be good to go. As for a row for 1440p 144Hz in the chart above, though, we don't have one because there isn't one yet! Until a single graphics card is released that can consistently provide 144+ FPS at 1440p in the vast majority of titles at max settings, we won't be adding that text to the chart.
A very well made list. Is there a similar one for CPUs?
Not currently, but we do at least have an article ranking some of the best CPU options for different budget brackets.
When the top GPU is being listed and mine still on the lowest of the best :') Rip gt 730
how is it holding up with 2019 games? what laptop do you have and specs please? i want a decent gaming laptop without going broke.
You guys need to fix your website, it is not mobile responsive. FYI I’m using safari on an iPhone.
Yes, the site has never had the best mobile device compatibility. But rest assured that we are currently working on improving it for the near future!
I noticed happily that the AMD Vega APUs got added to the list. For sh*ts and giggles could we also add the Athlon 200GE?
Hmmm that opens up too much of a rabbit hole, I'm afraid---because there are a huge number of iGPUs and mobile GPUs that could be listed at the bottom of the chart. Instead, I think we'll continue to just have the phrase 'older GPUs and iGPUs' in the bottom row cover all of them.
The Athlon 200GE is less than a year old though and based on the same GPU architecture as the Ryzen based APUs which are included in the list.
That's correct, but that phrase isn't meant to convey "older GPUs and older iGPUs." It's meant to convey "older unlisted GPUs and all unlisted iGPUs." I might rephrase it soon, to make that more clear.
Is there a typo in the notes for GTX 1070 and 1080 tiers? 1080p120 and 1080p144 are surely less demanding than 4k60, did you mean 1440p?
Not necessarily! Those notes are meant to apply to all games, which means it includes poorly optimized titles like PUBG, MHW, and Ark. It is often a brutal struggle to get consistent frame rates well above 100 in such games at max settings, even as low as 1080p.
Very late reply, but is that not down to the CPU being a bottleneck as opposed to the GPU not being powerful enough? You have more experience with it than I do though.
It varies. You're right, in that it's true that there are some titles which are simply unintuitively CPU-bound, and that hampers performance past a certain point (especially for lower-tier systems and lower resolutions). But then there are other titles, especially like Ark and PUBG, which truly do just have sub-par optimization---requiring significant power from both the CPU and GPU to achieve impressive frame rates. But that doesn't stop folks from expecting that our recommendations would apply to those titles as well, seeing as they are demonstrably popular games.
I haven't played either game, so I'll defer to your experience. It just seems very counterintuitive that, despite optimization, rendering half as many pixels per second could be more demanding on the GPU, with the same graphical settings.
You know what? I think you're right and I'm wrong. I sort of misread your question slightly. My earlier answers were just dealing with why it may be harder than you think to run games at 120 FPS or 144 FPS at 1080p. But your actual original question was just about why we have those notes higher on the list than 4K 60 FPS. What tipped me off that we were talking past each other was you saying 'half as many pixels.' In fact, 1080p is not half as many pixels as 4K---it's one-fourth as many pixels! 4K is indeed a tall task for any system. So I'm guessing that what happened is that someone moved up the 1080p notes at some point in the past (to match with increasing hardware demands of games over time), but forgot to move 1440p and 4K up as well. I will personally fix this soon. Thanks for your comments!
That makes sense. Glad I could help :)
But the r9 380 has a better performance than gtx1050Ti, though ( https://gpu.userbenchmark.c... )