GPU enthusiasts, how much are you actually willing to spend?

[AnotherGuy]

Hey Op just coz u can spend $600 to $1000 or whatever doesnt mean that most of the average to high end gamers will spend more than $200 on a vid card.
I consider myself a higher than average gamer and computer enthusiast and for the games I play I only needed to spend $190 for a 280x about a year ago...and most likely won't upgrade it for another year or so... unless AMD has a nice card for $200-250 this year.

 

[VirtualLarry]

More or less, you basically have to upgrade more often now or stop caring about depreciation. Another alternative is to buy last gen cards used. EVGA B-stock had 780Ti for $189-230 about a year after 970 launched. So if you don't need a cutting edge card all the time, there is a lot of $ to be saved from upgrading strategically.

Excellent post RS, about the NV hedonistic treadmill they have their customers in.

I'm still happy with the 7950 3GB cards I picked up new for $130 ea. on fire sale.

Might spring for a Polaris 10, if the price isn't too high. (under $250 ea?)

 

[tential]

G-Sync isn't locking me into the nVidia ecosystem, the only thing really locking me in is nVidia's reliability at having release day ready drivers and SLI profiles. AMD has made outstanding hardware since the 79xx generation, they really just need to make sure it's hitting at full speed from the get go rather than 4-6 months after release. nVidia can't even claim better multicard scaling since the 290 generation came out, though what they can lay claim to is it almost always works and works right out of the gate, something AMD sometimes fumbles with. I'm envious of Crossfire scaling and of the long legs the hardware as of late seems to have, the previously mentioned things are all that prevent me from going back to AMD. With every AMD release I hope they crush it, it can only benefit us all.

Back to the gsync thing, I recently got a 2560x1440 gsync monitor after listening to all you guys go on and on about gsync/freesync and 1080p being a peasant resolution.....my general feeling is "meh". I guess the monitor is ok, but I haven't been wowed, not much of a leap from my Asus VG278H IMO. I guess the additional desktop real estate is nice, but I've been unimpressed in games. I previously said I was going to wait for a curved 34" 3440x1440 21:9 120Hz capable monitor before I upgraded but curiosity got the better of me, I should have waited...I think that's what it's going to take for me to go "wow".

To be clear, I am always saying people should go 4K Gsync/Freesync. I think it's good, but IMO, if I'm you, with 3 980Ti, I'm not getting a 2560x1440p monitor... That's still peasant resolution.

I would have honestly gone the AMH 409 in your position. Yes, no Gsync, but it's a large monitor, and you have 3 980Ti. You can handle the 4K glory.

Either way, 4K Gsync is what I would have said. I would have never expected you to be wowwed by 1440p gsync.....

I mean, in your position, I'd see if DSR + Gsync worked and how well it works. See, I like VSR a LOT, which is why I'm happy AMD has been a great value, because VSR quality is definitely preferable to me over DSR quality.

The whole point of Gsync is to be able to up the resolution you're playing at. Not the settings IMO. If you up the settings, the impact isn't so useful. It's really resolution that's the killer, and Gsync helps minimize that barrier and allows you to play at resolutions you wouldn't have been able to play at or render at before.

P10 in Crossfire will beat the 1070 SLI easily, and will be close to the 1080 SLI.
P10 Tri Fire will beat 1080 TRI SLI

Just like how I couldn't stand the Fury X because it was the same price as the 980Ti but slower (Even if faster in CF mode which is what I wanted anyway). I couldn't stand owning a 1080 TRISLI knowing the P10 TriFire would be faster. Which would lead me to not even wanting a 1080 because that's just gross that $2100 worth of GPU won't be able to be faster than $900 worth of GPU (P10 comes in at $300 tops, although at $300 I honestly will be slightly disappointed).

 

[escrow4]

To be clear, I am always saying people should go 4K Gsync/Freesync. I think it's good, but IMO, if I'm you, with 3 980Ti, I'm not getting a 2560x1440p monitor... That's still peasant resolution.

I would have honestly gone the AMH 409 in your position. Yes, no Gsync, but it's a large monitor, and you have 3 980Ti. You can handle the 4K glory.

Either way, 4K Gsync is what I would have said. I would have never expected you to be wowwed by 1440p gsync.....

<snip>

Why would I spend thousands for sloppy console ports that are broken Day 1? I used to have no problem spending a $1000 for a top shelf GPU but now, why bother? Bloated 50GB broken console ports with 5-10hr single player campaigns. The exceptions each year - 1 or 2 - are still not worth spending that much. Look at GTA V - Rockstar sold out to multiplayer and made a short and dull single player campaign that wasn't worth waiting on PC since 2013. Pffft. Games are as plastic as those disgusting PG-13 comic book monstrosities littering theaters.

 

[beginner99]

Yeah kinda weird $300-600 is lumped together. There is a whole range of gamers between those two prices points. My hard limit is around $400.

Yeah same for me. Bought a 290x for $250 last October. Fair deal. I could see myself affording $600 but not at current performance level you get for that price. It's not only about absolute price but also diminishing returns, overpricing high-end. That used 290x has far better performance/$ than any other high-end offering.

 

[YBS1]

To be clear, I am always saying people should go 4K Gsync/Freesync. I think it's good, but IMO, if I'm you, with 3 980Ti, I'm not getting a 2560x1440p monitor... That's still peasant resolution.

I see what you're saying, but to me 60Hz is peasant refresh. I'll not ever run a monitor that doesn't run at least 120Hz. It flat out feels broken.

I considered trying that new 100Hz 21:9 Predator, but when I found out it's not a true 100Hz panel, only overclockable *maybe-not guaranteed* up to 100Hz, I said forget it. I'll wait for true 120Hz panels on that size/res.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Probably should have split these price brackets a little more in the 0-600 range in the poll. Like 100-150, 150-200, 200-250, 250-300. You get the idea.

 

[Broburger]

$700

 

[3DVagabond]

Too broad a price points.

 

[kaesden]

Too broad a price points.

yeah... WAY too broad to get any sort of useful data.

 

[nitromullet]

2) NV users are very loyal. You can see already on this forum the people who are most excited about 1070/1080 aren't objective/AMD users, but people who own Fermi (GTX580), Kepler (670/680/780/780Ti) and Maxwell (970/980 users).

For example, if I bought a $450 770 4GB or a $650 780 or a $700 780Ti and then saw what happened over the last 1.5 years, I wouldn't buy a next gen NV card out of principle. Them, they line up to buy MORE. Did you also wonder how many of them are locked into the NV eco-system with G-Sync? I bet many are. That means AMD isn't even an option for them, no matter the price, the performance, etc. I mean considering AMD cards also made/make $ and they dipped to 20% market share, that should tell you that the vast majority of NV users wouldn't take any AMD card for free. I wouldn't be shocked if some of them would spend $700 on a 1080 than take a free Vega.

c'mon, it's not like AMD is treating us any better... The price of a Radeon R9 290 had gotten down to $250 USD or less.

This week the U.S.-based Newegg store drop prices of Radeon R9 290X graphics cards (2816 stream processors, 176 texture units 64 raster operating pipelines, 512-bit memory bus, 4GB GDDR5 onboard) from Diamond Multimedia and Gigabyte Technology to $279 after $20 mail-in rebate (MiR), whereas Radeon R9 290X from MSI and PowerColor can be purchased for as low as $299 and $309, respectively, after $30 mail-in-rebate.

The same store offers Radeon R9 290 graphics adapters (2560 SPs, 160 TUs, 64 ROPs, 512-bit memory interface and 4GB of GDDR5 onboard) from XFX, Sapphire and HIS for as low as $229 (after $30 MiR), $239 (after $20 MiR) and $249 (after $29 MiR), respectively.

source: http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...prices-of-radeon-r9-290-graphics-cards-again/

Now, look at the price of an R9 390... A year and a half later, the SAME DAMN card with a different name and an extra 8GB of RAM starts at just over $300...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...iption=r9 390&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

How is that any better?

 

[techne]

I'm waiting for the "amazing mid-range $300 Polaris with all the bells and whistles" they're talking about.

Otherwise I will keep using my HD 7850 (2 GB). An enthusiast? I don't think so. Just trying to survive in the jungle.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Every time I see someone refer to a 970, 980, 1070 or 1080 class GPU as "mid-range", I have a little "Huh?" moment. I know it's the accepted classification scheme, it's just that they are still way too expensive for me to consider mid-range. I suppose I'm not a serious enough gamer for it to be worth it.

For me, a 980 is high end and a 980Ti is ultra high end. Both out of my price range. It's just how I think of things.

Anyway, as for my own spending patterns, I can't quite justify spending more than say $200 on a GPU. Even then, I tend to be quite conservative in my GPU purchases. I'm going to wait for both Pascal and Polaris to be available for purchase for at least 6 months before I consider buying one. Actually, make that 6 months after the release of a Polaris and Pascal that I can actually afford. Prices will still decrease after the 6 month mark, but they should be relatively stable by then. If AMD reacts to nvidia or vice versa, it will happen within 6 months.

 

[MajinCry]

Ya peasant resolutions?

I'm staying on me 1280x1024 for life, or until a company makes a bigga 5:4 monitor. Ya rectangle lads dunnae know what's good fer ya.

 

[nerp]

What is the definition of a GPU enthusiast? I consider myself a gpu enthusiast as i love reading and discussing graphics cards and occasionally buying them to play games. However as for how much i am willing to spend, as per my current financial situation i would say not more than $100. Does that still make me a gpu enthusiast or does one necessarily need to spend hundreds of dollars to be considered a gpu enthusiast?

You are an enthusiast.

You don't need mom and dad to buy you a $600 GPU for passing community college with a B- to be a video card enthusiast, as some would argue in this forum.

 

[railven]

c'mon, it's not like AMD is treating us any better... The price of a Radeon R9 290 had gotten down to $250 USD or less.



source: http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...prices-of-radeon-r9-290-graphics-cards-again/

Now, look at the price of an R9 390... A year and a half later, the SAME DAMN card with a different name and an extra 8GB of RAM starts at just over $300...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...iption=r9 390&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=30

How is that any better?

Because AMD...

AMD's flagship card has gone up 250% in price over the last 6 years, but that don't matter, cuz the die is bigger! Ohhhkay.

 

[NTMBK]

Ya peasant resolutions?

I'm staying on me 1280x1024 for life, or until a company makes a bigga 5:4 monitor. Ya rectangle lads dunnae know what's good fer ya.

You can get 1600x1200 displays from Dell. http://www.amazon.com/Dell-Ultrasharp-1600x1200-Monitor-Height-Adjustable/dp/B000UVDONY

 

[Genx87]

Every time I see someone refer to a 970, 980, 1070 or 1080 class GPU as "mid-range", I have a little "Huh?" moment. I know it's the accepted classification scheme, it's just that they are still way too expensive for me to consider mid-range. I suppose I'm not a serious enough gamer for it to be worth it.

For me, a 980 is high end and a 980Ti is ultra high end. Both out of my price range. It's just how I think of things.

Anyway, as for my own spending patterns, I can't quite justify spending more than say $200 on a GPU. Even then, I tend to be quite conservative in my GPU purchases. I'm going to wait for both Pascal and Polaris to be available for purchase for at least 6 months before I consider buying one. Actually, make that 6 months after the release of a Polaris and Pascal that I can actually afford. Prices will still decrease after the 6 month mark, but they should be relatively stable by then. If AMD reacts to nvidia or vice versa, it will happen within 6 months.

This whole thing about "mid range" is effing stupid anyways. It is applying expected performance with a price and vice versa. I mean they are even complaining a 379 dollar 1070 may not beat a previously 1000 dollar Titan by 20%. lol wut?

 

[xthetenth]

What is the definition of a GPU enthusiast? I consider myself a gpu enthusiast as i love reading and discussing graphics cards and occasionally buying them to play games. However as for how much i am willing to spend, as per my current financial situation i would say not more than $100. Does that still make me a gpu enthusiast or does one necessarily need to spend hundreds of dollars to be considered a gpu enthusiast?

I think moon's using enthusiast in the "market segment comprised of somewhat but not actually price inelastic customers" sense to get a feel for how far current pricing trends are likely to go. I'd say anyone who spends significant time/money in terms of how much they have is an enthusiast. A guy who has $100 after necessary expenses in a month is more an enthusiast if he buys a $200 card than a guy who spends $650 but is bringing home $500 after bills, let alone someone with $1000+ discretionary income.

Frankly anyone who cares enough to do proper research before buying is a low level enthusiast, and guys like us who care enough to argue about the stuff are serious enthusiasts. That doesn't mean we're right but it's about interest, not ability.

 

[Shmee]

I bought my 290s used for about $290 each, so $580 is the cost for this comp. I can see spending up to $500 a card, and possibly getting 2 of them, with something like Pascal or polaris. Depending on budget and need of course.

 

[nanaki333]

i haven't paid for a GPU in probably the last 6, maybe 7 years, so $0 for me! as long as i stay put at my job anyway, then i'll be feeling the hurt again. before that though, $399 was the max i spent.

 

[AtenRa]

I would really like to know how many of those 78 people (almost 44%) voted for $300-600 actually would spend more than $350-400.

 

[hawtdawg]

Nice. I've only done something like this twice, with 7800GTX's and 980TI's. Everything else was expensive, but not like those two times. I went crazy those two times. Its a rare thing for me, but I'm still willing to do it if conditions are right.

I've been a gamer for years, but now that I can afford to do it, I see myself dropping that kind of cash on whatever top GPU's come along every couple of years (top reasonable ones, I ain't buying no Titan, though i did buy one before selling it to get 780's).

I'm still rocking an Ivy Bridge rig, but whenever the 1080ti or Fury XXX or whatever come out, i'll probably build a new rig.

 

[jlee]

I would really like to know how many of those 78 people (almost 44%) voted for $300-600 actually would spend more than $350-400.

If I could get a single card solution that would easily run 60fps @ 4k/max with modern games, I'd consider going to 600.

 

[moonbogg]

I would really like to know how many of those 78 people (almost 44%) voted for $300-600 actually would spend more than $350-400.

My interest is in the upper spending ranges. I am assuming Nvidia has done their research and came to the solid conclusion that people are willing, without issue, to spend $700 on a mid range card that historically would have cost $250. I want to see that kind of information myself.
So, if people are willing to snatch up a bunch of 1080's at $700 (mid range) that must mean people are also wiling to increase the cost of a full die high end past $1,000. How far past? I want to know.
The poll is fine how it is because it shows what price bracket people are in. There is enough filtering at the low end, or traditional price brackets for dual card setups costing $500 each ($1,000.00 or less) and I want to know how many of you crazy people are willing to sell not only your organs, but the organs of your children and perhaps even pets for a $1,000.00 Nvidia mid range card and $1,500.00 high end card, in SLI, with water blocks or fancy vapor chamber for an extra $350.00.
How far are you guys going to take this? Because Nvidia is testing us. They are testing the market to see how far they can push it, and every generation they push it farther and farther, each time setting a new precedent. This last time they really got cocky and charged an extra hundred for a reference cooler. Maybe that was a trick to make you feel good about spending "only" $600 for an after market mid range card.
Anyway, the poll is fine. The poll is not the problem. People spending $700 on a mid range card? Now that's what you should be complaining about.