this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
93 points (100.0% liked)

Hardware

2748 readers
84 users here now

All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.

Rules (Click to Expand):

  1. Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about

  2. Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.

  3. No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.

  4. Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.

  5. Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).

  6. If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.

Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:

Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
93
I tested $200-ish GPUs from Nvidia, AMD, and Intel—but no matter who wins, budget gamers lose (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Cards like Radeon 8GB RX 480 and Nvidia 6GB GTX 1060 were around $250 and were excellent lower midrange cards 8 years ago.
A lower midrange card like the Radeon 16GB RX 9060 is around $380. (Based on price today in Denmark)
So an increase of 50% in 8 years. Not nearly as bad as it has been in several periods in between, when for instance the modest RX 580 was above $500 due to mining, and midrange cards were essentially dead.

But the main problem is that a card like the 16GB RX 9060 is basically the entry point today, there are no good value options below that AFAIK.

Edit:
I was informed about the 12GB Intel Arc B580, which is both cheaper and better than the 8GB Radeon RX 9600 XT.
With the RX 9600 XT be SURE you get the 16 GB version.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The Arc B580 is pretty good for what it is. Yes it's worse than the RX 9060, but it's also about $100 cheaper. If you're playing at 1080p it's a perfectly valid choice.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

I have to admit that the Arc cards have been a surprisingly bright point. Even the A310 I have currently installed in my media server is decently capable for its price.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

AFAIK the Arc B580 is better and cheaper than the 8GB RX 9060, better as in faster in part because it has 12 GB RAM.
So right now B580 is probably the best value for money budget card.

I really hope Intel will continue to make Graphics cards, but it doesn't look so good.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

$250 in 2016 would be $335 today. A 16 GB 9060 costs $370 which is only 10% higher. So prices are getting reasonable; after having been completely outrageous the past few years.

Now these are US prices. But the 9060 is available in Sweden for $435 eqv. which is really not bad.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Exactly, but remember to subtract VAT from prices in Sweden when comparing to American prices. Americans always state prices without VAT.
I really doubt it's that much more expensive in Sweden than in Denmark, especially because some of the dealers are the same.
Also remember to state if it's the 16GB card, the 8GB is not a good purchase anymore.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I looked strictly at 16 GB versions as the 8 GB should not exist.

I wasn't sure if US listings actually included some kind of sales tax without saying so, if not, the card is actually cheaper here 🥹 (before taxes).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The 8GB is available here, but it's not stated until you look at specs.
And it's $70 cheaper.

https://www.pricerunner.dk/cl/37/Grafikkort?attr_60535069=100019509&sort=popularity

The XFX is only 8GB.

Sales tax in USA differs by state, which is why they aren't included in price listings, it would simply be impractical.
The reason they are cheaper here is probably the Trump import tariffs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

It's available here as well. But at 50 eurodollars less, for half the VRAM, it's not a card anyone should ever get.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I picked up an RX6600 like 4 months ago for my partner to play Monster Hunter Wilds. It was $300 CAD (So, $220) and plays everything on the market at medium settings, 60fps.

It's a lower mid range card that does what we expect in the price range. It was also a sale price, but we got it.

I'm not denying that prices are, in general, higher, particularly if you're looking for traditional mid range options or even high end cards, but budget options exist.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Well yes and no, The RX 6600 is a 4-5 year old card, and absolutely low end by today's standards.
I'm not saying that to be arrogant, because I use a 6600 XT myself. And it works OK for me. Because I mostly play retro games.
But if you look at reviews of the 9600 XT, the 6650 XT which is slightly better than 6600, is the bottom of the charts if it's even included, at typical framerates more than 50% below the 16 GB 9600 XT.
So yes you can get cheaper cards, but the price is higher per FPS. Maybe except for the Intel Arc B580.
You can also get the 9600 XT in a cheaper 8 GB version, but that is STRONGLY warned against, because for some new games, performance fall off a cliff with only 8GB!
So the 8 GB Radeon RX 9600 XT is not even recommended as an entry level card!

But to be honest, I was positively surprised when I saw the 16 GB version is only $380 (USD) here in Denmark. Because that's actually cheaper than what I paid for the 6600 XT when it came out. Back then that was $450 USD, and by far the best option on cost per fps.

Prices have been crazy, but they are actually somewhat normalizing now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Yep, grabbed a 6900xt for my wifes PC build a few months ago here in the states for $400 and got an AIO and some free ddr5 ram with it. New isn't always worth it. Older cards still have a ton of life left in them.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Buy high end, but not top end, stick with it for many many years and you'll actually have good experience the entire time.

Opposed to low end cards that are terrible when you buy them and just gets worse in just a year or two.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Tell that to my 1050ti that still works fine

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Depends on what you define as "still works fine"

I have a GTX 580 and it still renders frames without crashing. But my GTX 1080 wasn't cutting it for what I was doing so I finally had to upgrade.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Fair, to each their own. For me, it is occasional gaming, mostly stuff that is a few years old and/or not from the big studios. Plus some light CAD, video editing and messing around with Cuda once a year or so. Still, unless you want to play the latest and greatest, or want to play in >1080p, it mostly just works while using about 100W with a mild overclock.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you allow stretching budget slightly (as the article does), B570 reduces the number of compromises that an A750 makes (though of course there's still some).

Second-hand market is pretty serviceable at the price point too. I don't know how the demographics for these preferences slice up, but I basically don't play any new AAA games at release - so honestly 8GB is almost always enough for me, which makes a lot more second-hand cards viable (though I would still be hesitant to buy a new card with 8GB unless it was on a killer sale). There are surely a non-trivial number of people who also mostly buy several-year-old games on sales instead of new releases who don't need the extra VRAM to still have a perfectly playable experience.

edit: typo

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

VRAM requirements are way overstated. 8GB is fine for most people. 55% of Steam users are still on 1080p with another ~8% or so on comparable resolutions like 1920x1200 or under 1080p; so almost 2/3rds of their user base. It's good to future-proof, but it will be many years until 8GB VRAM becomes a true bottleneck.

B570 does seem like a solid option for the value space. That being said the B570 is closer to $290 (full out of pocket price) where I live. B580 goes for about $340. I feel like if you are paying ~$300 for a GPU, might as well save up another $50 and get the B580.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I still freaking can’t find a B580 that isn’t scalped. I haven’t bothered to look in about a month, so maybe things have changed.