No, that's $30 over his budget, with a $20 rebate.
It's $240 after rebate and PowerColor is very good with rebates, meaning $10 over his budget. You made it seem as if the rebate doesn't count. The card also comes with Dirt Rally, surely one can sell that game for $5?
I find it interesting/weird how so many people here see the word "budget" and assume that the maximum is just some arbitrary number they came up with and not a limit on how much the can/are willing to spend.
I find it more disturbing how an arbitrarily made up budget number overrides financial theory & economic theories, which looks at total return on investment and the total cost of ownership. In fact, any accountant, financial professional or economist worth his salt will stress that setting up a flexible budget (or a budget that allows for variance) can help long-term to keep your spending on track over time and actually improve cash flow. That's the difference between a strict arbitrary budget and a well thought out good budget. In practice what this means is if you buy a $200 graphics card that's 50% worse in performance than a $240 card, long-term it actually hurts you more:
1) You'll find yourself reducing settings much sooner;
2) If you desire better performance in future games, you'll end up shelling out yet another $150-200 for a next generation GPU just to get to where the $240 GPU is today;
3) You don't get to enjoy 50% higher performance (which can either be viewed in FPS terms of higher IQ settings) throughout the ownership period of the barely cheaper but 50% slower card.
For these reasons cards like R9 380 4GB and GTX960 4GB at $199 make no sense when R9 290 is $240 because they deliver inferior performance and end up costing more long-term.
Did you also miss the part where the OP stated that he may move to a 1440P display and doesn't anticipate upgrading until 2017/2018? That means should he ever desire to buy any new other games, 290 will crush 380/960 and furthermore, the 290 is the safest choice around his budget for DX12 support since it has 8 ACE engines. Finally, it's the ONLY GPU around his budget that has the greatest chance of actually lasting until 2017-2018 without choking.
A reference 290 (that thermal throttles) is
47% faster than a 960 4GB, and 34% faster than an aftermarket 380 4GB at 1080P:
This lead grows to a whopping
52% against 960 4GB and 37% against an after-market 380 4GB at 1440P (OP mentioned he is considering moving to that monitor resolution):
Google. Your fingers aren't broken. Its pretty well documented by anecdotal comments all over the internet for the past four years. If you have the game and an AMD card an easy test is to go to Anise's Cabin near Riverwood. Go into the basement and activate the Arcane Enchanter. If you have an AMD card your character will not bend down to use it smoothly unless you are using a third party FPS limiter set to 60 FPS to prevent the overshoot that causes the judder. Nvidia cards don't have this issue (and I've tested it on four different PCs, numerous GPUs and three different monitors). Again, its not just my word - there are numerous comments regarding it on various forums.
Not disagreeing with you but it ignores all the other gameplay data in Skyrim, doesn't it? It's easy to find some spots where any GPU might struggle but what about the
overall experience?
While your point that in some areas AMD cards might have below 60 fps dips can be true as the game is massive, it is extremely hard to believe you that the
overall experience on a 960 will be better than on a 290. Even taking the plain game and applying the high rez texture pack shows the 290 crushing the 680 (similar to a 960):
2560x1600 8AA
290 = 100 fps average /
80 min (
+31%)
7970Ghz = 78 fps average / 68 fps min
680 = 78 fps average /
61 min
www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/05/amd-radeon-r9-290-review/7
I presume anyone serious about playing Skyrim will be using mods and that's where AMD cards in the OP's price range will perform even better.
With ENB mods, GTX680 can barely keep up an HD7950 V2, and gets destroyed completely by an HD7970Ghz. So how is a GPU 50% more powerful (R9 290 vs. 960) than a GTX960 going to worse in Skyrim at 1080P with 8XAA/SSAA or at 1440P?
Skyrim ENB:
HD7970Ghz is 21% faster than 680 at 1080P 8xAA
HD7970Ghz is 20% faster than 680 at 1080P 4xSSAA
HD7970Ghz is
28% faster than 680 at
1440P
http://www.computerbase.de/2012-09/test-nvidia-geforce-gtx-660/23/
^ This data makes it extremely difficult to believe that a GTX960 4GB would provide a "superior" gaming experience over R9 280X/290/290X in Skyrim at 1080P with high AA or 1440P.
The higher the resolution, the more R9 290 will crush a 960. It seems you are ignoring how for the majority of the time the R9 290 will probably be posting 50%+ higher FPS averages against a 960 (or alternatively, one could pile on more mods or increase AA/VSR levels above what the 960's GPU can manage). I don't understand your point at all because dips below 60 fps isn't some end of the world but what about general averages, levels of mods/MSAA/AA settings and overall minimums throughout the rest of the game?
Tom's has R9 290 in the 90-130 fps range in the same scene where GTX770 is only 70-90 fps range, and 780 is in the 85-115 range. That means R9 290 beat both the 770 and the 780 at 2560x1440 in frame times:
I think you singling out specific areas in Skyrim to show sub-60 fps dips is providing a one-sided point of view of the entire Skyrim gaming experience.
Using your own argument, then is a 750Ti/960 better for Skyrim than a 290X/Fury X? Seriously?
---
As an aside, League of Legends is > 100 fps at 4K on anything above R9 380/960:
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-07/grafikkarten-benchmarks-cs-go-dota-2-lol-wot-wow-ultra-hd/3/
Also, if we look at Diablo 3, Dota 2, Heroes of the Storm (R9 390X -- closest to an after-market 290) wipes the floor with a GTX960 at 4K which means a 290 should do very well in SC2 at 1440P with high AA settings. 960 can't even beat a 380 4GB in fact:
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-07/...wow-ultra-hd/2/#abschnitt_heroes_of_the_storm
If the goal is to replace HD7950 with similar performance, then another good option would be to buy a used $100-120 HD7970/280X. $200 960 4GB or $200 380 4GB are not great buys imho.