best mid range gfx card with best power consumption?

[Stuka87]

I still say anybody that buys a new GTX 960 is nuts. They cost way more than other, faster cards. And their performance is pretty lack luster as a whole.

Idle power consumption is nearly identical for all GPU's out today. So in that case, go for the fastest card you can afford. If you can afford a 960, go for an 290/390 instead.

 

[Yuriman]

I still say anybody that buys a new GTX 960 is nuts. They cost way more than other, faster cards. And their performance is pretty lack luster as a whole.

Idle power consumption is nearly identical for all GPU's out today. So in that case, go for the fastest card you can afford. If you can afford a 960, go for an 290/390 instead.

I put a 960 in a build not too terribly long ago, because it was the fastest card I could get within my thermal budget - a small ITX case that would likely be tucked somewhere with inadequate ventilation. Its priceerformance when compared to a 290 was irrelevant, because I could not have used a 290 for the build.

Priceerformance is often a hugely important metric, but it's also sometimes nearly irrelevant, or at least outweighed by a combination of other factors.

Consider some other factors someone might choose a video card:
Vendor specific feature
Power / heat
Physical size
Noise
Absolute price cap
Absolute performance
Warranty
Reliability (real or perceived)
Compute ability
Software/driver preference
Linux support

 

[IEC]

You can totally use a R290 in a power/thermal constrained build - you just need to run an MSI Afterburner profile with ~50-120mV undervolt @ 850MHz +/- 50 on the core. This is the sweet spot for perf/W for the Hawai'i chip. You'd use anywhere from 20-40% less power and still thrash a 960.

 

[Phynaz]

I still say anybody that buys a new GTX 960 is nuts. They cost way more than other, faster cards. And their performance is pretty lack luster as a whole.

Idle power consumption is nearly identical for all GPU's out today. So in that case, go for the fastest card you can afford. If you can afford a 960, go for an 290/390 instead.

I asked for and received a 4GB 960 for xmas. Low power and quiet. Runs Fallout 4 on ultra. Uses less power than my 660.

 

[tential]

I asked for and received a 4GB 960 for xmas. Low power and quiet. Runs Fallout 4 on ultra. Uses less power than my 660.

Ya I mean if you're happy with the performance of a gtx 960 that's great.

I had an hd7950. I could spent $200 and have a gtx 960 which is literally the same performance of the 7950. Or, I could get an r9 290 and ratchet up every setting.

I guess I can see how coming from your scenario you're happy with your purchase. But you could have jumped up a full tier of graphics card for the same price. That's a fact.

But hey, you're happy with your gift! That's what counts.

Just different priorities.

It's why I recommend the gtx 960 to op. I just don't think the performance is what matters to him, where as for me, I play games for visuals. I'm only excited to play ac unity for the visuals at 4k nothing else.

Considering the used 290 can't be around 220 now as the 290s are actually going up in value (290x can actually be found at 290 prices quite a bit though making those a steal on eBay used). That can put a 50 dollar difference between the gtx 960 and the 290.

That's 50 more he can put to something else he will actually care about where pushing an extra setting in an arena shooter where killing people is all that matters I doubt will improve his life much at all. That's just me though.

 

[Yuriman]

You can totally use a R290 in a power/thermal constrained build - you just need to run an MSI Afterburner profile with ~50-120mV undervolt @ 850MHz +/- 50 on the core. This is the sweet spot for perf/W for the Hawai'i chip. You'd use anywhere from 20-40% less power and still thrash a 960.

A 290 also wouldn't physically fit in that build. If it were my own PC, I'd probably do just this, but given that it's around 2000 miles away now, I would be concerned that a driver update or Windows refresh would undo this and cause problems.

 

[Headfoot]

I asked for and received a 4GB 960 for xmas. Low power and quiet. Runs Fallout 4 on ultra. Uses less power than my 660.

Runs Fallout 4 on ultra, maybe at 768p, maybe if you have it running on an overclocked Skylake using fast DRAM. And maybe if you're ok with FPS dips into the 20's.

980 Ti can barely run Ultra level shadow distance at 60 consistently at 1440 and even 1080 in some locations in the game.

 

[Phynaz]

Runs Fallout 4 on ultra, maybe at 768p, maybe if you have it running on an overclocked Skylake using fast DRAM. And maybe if you're ok with FPS dips into the 20's.

980 Ti can barely run Ultra level shadow distance at 60 consistently at 1440 and even 1080 in some locations in the game.

19x12. Auto configured ultra preset.

I'm assuming you don't own the game.

 

[Headfoot]

Lol. I've got nearly 100 hours on the game. My rig in my sig won't cap at 60 at Ultra at 1080p in the city in Fallout 4. I have to turn shadow distance to high to keep 60 minimums.

Your 960 doesn't cap 60 at 1080 in Fallout 4 ultra, period. Highs of 60, yes. Average of 60, no. Not on ultra. Not with shadow distance and godrays at ultra. Maybe averages around 40's outside the city with dips into the 20's in the city. I find the game pretty unplayable lower than 35-40.

I'm assuming you haven't entered the city.

Go to Corvega plant, look at the structure, and tell me what your FPS is at Ultra. Then go to Wreck of USS Riptide in the city, look at that from the bridge, and tell me what your FPS is on Ultra. w/ screenshots

 

[Phynaz]

Why would I do that? I'm happy with the card. If you don't like it then you are free to buy me whatever card will make you happy. I can pm you my shipping address.

And include a good power supply too please, as I'm currently running on a 450w oem.

 

[Headfoot]

So you are unwilling to provide proof of your claim. Got it. I stand by 960 does not do Fallout 4 ultra at 1080p at what I consider playable FPS. I am happy to provide screenshots of the above locations at ultra with my overclocked 290.

 

[xorbe]

OP asked for $200 mid-range suggestion, and you guys are on talking about Ultra settings at 2560x1440 ...

New: 4GB 960, or 380/380X.

Used: 970, 290/390, or the best deal you can find.

Prices have crept up, $200 doesn't seem to impress on new products these days. nVidia left a monster price gap between 960 and 970. I see a $280AR 970 on Newegg -- spending 40% more on the 970 will get you roughly 50% more performance, more longevity out of the product.

 

[Phynaz]

So you are unwilling to provide proof of your claim. Got it. I stand by 960 does not do Fallout 4 ultra at 1080p at what I consider playable FPS. I am happy to provide screenshots of the above locations at ultra with my overclocked 290.

Looks up at thread title. Sees low power. Overclocked AMD cards need not apply.

 

[Atreidin]

Looks up at thread title. Sees low power. Overclocked AMD cards need not apply.

He's not recommending an overclocked AMD card. He's saying his much faster card struggles with a situation your much slower card does well with, thus your claim makes no sense. He is correct.

This is relevant because you're over-inflating expectations of what a 960 can do.

 

[MrTeal]

Looks up at thread title. Sees low power. Overclocked AMD cards need not apply.

Read the post. OP wants low idle power as he leaves his rig on all the time. The long idle/blanked display performance of all the GCN and modern nVidia cards is good enough now that they're pretty indistinguishable. Nothing draws 40W anymore.

 

[Magic Carpet]

All modern cards idle in the 5w-20w range. Give or take. Even the 290 isn't so bad, maybe 15w or so (tested MSI GAMING 290 yesterday). The lowest idle consumption I've seen was with the 750/750TI cards though, around 5 or 6. And when you kill the fans, it's another watt or two off the meter. If you want to save power, you really should be looking at a different platform (i.e. SoC).

 

[Leyawiin]

Yeah, if the period of time when the GPU is actually doing 3D work isn't a big concern any card will do for fairly low idle power usage.

 

[Headfoot]

Looks up at thread title. Sees low power. Overclocked AMD cards need not apply.

Reads first sentence, sees the word "idle"

What's the best gaming gfx card nowadays that can get very good idle gfx performance?

Really weak strawman, too easily disproven. 2/10. I've seen better.

 

[mlody]

i had Asus GTX 960 for few months about 6-7 months ago cause I wanted to play the Witcher 3. I gave up on the game and sold the card. Fast forward today, and I am looking again for a video card that will play witcher 3 and perhaps Wow/Diablo 3 @1200 resolution. So far it seems like not much has changed since April/May of last year and the GTX 960 is still king when it comes to the overall value and efficiency. My power supply is only about 350Watts and that is one of the reasons that I originally went with GTX960. It seems like I will be picking up the same card again as I know it will suite me just fine for what I need.

 

[TeknoBug]

Probably GTX 950 fits the title description. But realistically I'd be buying a 960 which has gone up in price or R9 380(or X), bit more power but also a bit more consumption- AMD cards aren't capital for power consumption under load.

 

[Zodiark1593]

i had Asus GTX 960 for few months about 6-7 months ago cause I wanted to play the Witcher 3. I gave up on the game and sold the card. Fast forward today, and I am looking again for a video card that will play witcher 3 and perhaps Wow/Diablo 3 @1200 resolution. So far it seems like not much has changed since April/May of last year and the GTX 960 is still king when it comes to the overall value and efficiency. My power supply is only about 350Watts and that is one of the reasons that I originally went with GTX960. It seems like I will be picking up the same card again as I know it will suite me just fine for what I need.

Well, not a great value at any rate, and even perf/watt begins looking kinda shaky if DX12 benefits primarily GCN cards.

 

[mlody]

Well, not a great value at any rate, and even perf/watt begins looking kinda shaky if DX12 benefits primarily GCN cards.

Thanks for the replay. I will post a new thread with my PC spec to see what are the best recommendations at this time.

 

[tential]

He's not recommending an overclocked AMD card. He's saying his much faster card struggles with a situation your much slower card does well with, thus your claim makes no sense. He is correct.

This is relevant because you're over-inflating expectations of what a 960 can do.

Its funny because there are no benchmarks or videos to prove the claims of the gtx 960 performance in the thread. They're just pulling "60 fps" quotes out of thin air.

Notice how every time it's always "no my card can do exactly 60 fps!" not 55,50,45. Anytime someone makes one of these unbacked claims it's always 60 fps and always at an unbelievable setting.

 

[Blue_Max]

Any modern card has good idle performance if you've got one monitor. For multi-monitor setups, AMD cards draw a lot more power at idle than Nvidia.

That's a good tidbit of info. Hope you caught this, OP!

If you cared about power use while gaming, the GTX 750TI and GTX 950 are still the kings of the sandbox.

 

[evident]

That's a good tidbit of info. Hope you caught this, OP!

If you cared about power use while gaming, the GTX 750TI and GTX 950 are still the kings of the sandbox.

Sorry I haven't responded in a while. I don't care about power use while gaming, as it's so rare that I do so any more. so a difference in 40-50 w when i'm gaming doesn't make a difference.

Any modern card has good idle performance if you've got one monitor. For multi-monitor setups, AMD cards draw a lot more power at idle than Nvidia.

This is a really important thing to know. I use dual monitors at all times on my setup. they shut off after 5-10 mins though.


I can still get by with my HD7770 with UT4 in all low settings but its really getting to the point where i need something else. I will probably pick up some games like sleeping dogs to play
Gtx 970 at $280 is just way too much money for me to justify. But if i can find it used for $200 i would certainly consider it