So here we are once again to find out what you guys think about some aspect of graphics hardware. In response to our recent articles on multiGPU scaling, set to conclude with a 4-way shootout coming soon, we have gotten a lot of feedback about cost and value.
Our attempt to distill some of the decision making process will always be clunky, as there is no perfect way to present all possible data. There is also no way to present any subset of data in all ways that would be relevant to everyone. So we've got to stick to producing a reasonable subset of data presented in a reasonable subset of forms to best assist our readership. And there's no better way to do that than to just ask you what you think about the subject. Hooray for polling.
While we may ask more specific questions in the future on methods, we are currently listening to any and all feedback left in the comments of our articles. We would also love to see some general comments on benchmark presentation on this blog post.
But the major purpose behind this particular poll isn't to determine the best way to display data. We starting at a more general point and will try to drill down in future polls. But for now, we would like to know how much both cost and value matter to our readers.
Obviously we spend a lot of time on the high end. It's an exciting market and even if we can't afford the parts it's neat to look at what will be affordable in about 18 months time. But we suspect that the majority of our readers, while interested in high end or even halo parts, will care much more about lower price points and bang for buck metrics.
We are interested in focusing more squarely on the market segments the majority of our readers are interested in, and we are also very interested in understanding just how value relates to the decision making process within those market segments.
We could make some extremely complex polls based on all this, but we've decided to try and keep it as simple as possible for now. The first question is straight forward. Rather than focusing on what vendor or what performance you want, we would like to know what your maximum budget for buying a new graphics card is when you upgrade.
The second question is a bit more complex. Basically, we want to know how much more /or/ less you are willing to spend if another part near your price offers significantly more value.
For instance, if you are considering part A and part B costs 10% more but your investment gains you more than 10%, will you break the bank a little and spend outside of your price range for the part B?
On the flip side, if you are considering part A and part B costs 10% less but performance drops less than 10%, will you choose to save some money to go with the part that might not perform exactly as high but gives you more for the money?
So, look at the first question as the price you are fixed on spending to get a specific level of performance. The second question modifies the first by asking how flexible you would be in the performance segment if you could get a better value by spending slightly more or slightly less.
I know, I know ... it's a little convoluted. But the alternative is a much more complex poll that associates price points with specific differences in performance and cost ... and I don't think we're ready for 100+ question polls ... We're certainly open to your suggestions on how to ask the right questions to get to the heart of this sort of data though. But for now, here's the poll.
{poll 122:1200}
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
71 Comments
View All Comments
superkdogg - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
With young kids, my discretionary income is limited. I usually can scare up a sweet deal. I got my 9600GT for $75 AR and sometime soon I will end up getting another one for less than that. Ending up with a pair of 9600GTs for around $125 while having graphics performancethat is good enough for me for about 3-4 years is value in my book.
Leyawiin - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
My current card is an 8800 GTX that cost $550 in January 2007. It was a bit hard to swallow at them time, but I'm still happily using it on a 22 inch monitor and it provides comparable performance to today's mid-range cards (HD 4850/9800 GTX). That's pretty good longevity and value, especially considering I'll get one more year out of it before my new PC build ($180 a year - many people spend that much upgrade mid-range cards over three years).Hopefully the "next big thing" will hit about the time I'm ready for my new build.
cookEgawd - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
When I buy a new video card, I usually shoot for under $200, but will go up to $250 if pressed.But, I don't really care much about *today's* price when I look at reviews (which is what we're talking about here, right?). It's all relative and I'm very rarely ready to buy when you put out a review. So if I'm looking at a bunch of cards compared by price on newegg, I want to beable to come to anandtech, look at a page and see the performace of these cards compared to each other. Tom's tries to do that but doesn't do it well. THEN, I want to be able to drill down and see the details. It's important to have generic articles on the tech behind each card and what it is that makes it a good card. Periodic scorecards on manufacturers would allow you to get some kind of idea on reliability and build quality.
So I'm looking for a site that gives me the tools I need to make a smart purchasing decision when I'm ready to buy. I like to keep up with the latest kit as much as the next guy, but when I'm buying, I want fast, reliable information on the cards I'm looking at. Build your reviews and benchmarks for longevity, and I'll be happy.
StormyParis - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
such as yearly hardware budget, or number of PCs, or total RAM of main PC... any indication of the level of geekness of the respondent.You may be surprised by how many non-computer-nerds your audience has, due to the democratisation of the whole PC scene, and the lack of good web sites.
Tiamat - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
GPUs I look at usually MSRP for 200$, I go ±$50 based on ease of implementing a passive cooling (or semi-active <19dB) solution. Several years ago, it was the ATI Radeon 9800pro 256MB, just recently it was the ATI Radeon HD4870 1GB for 230$. I paid the premium to ensure I got the 4-phase power design, for example. Generally, I wait a while to make the purchase (HD4870 has been out for a long time) to allow the market to fight the price/performance "battle" for me.superccs - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
I was thinking you could have aqcuired more information about relative graphics card spending by asking a similar set of questions.1) How much do you spend when upgrading the main components of your system (mainboard, CPU, GPU, RAM)?
2) What proportion of that upgrade cost is dedicated to GPU?
Great work none-the-less.
Zak - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
I bought my last 285 cards because they were coming with CoD - World at War which I wanted to buy anyway. That's $40-50 right there. (Accidentally I got FC2 too) So if I had to chose between three cards of the same speed/price: one without extras, one with a game I own/don't want and one with a game I want, I'll definitely go with the third one. I'd also take a free game over a mail-in rebate.Z.
ET - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
I've had some luck winning graphics cards in recent years, which is my favourite way of acquiring them. Before that I bought a couple of used ones (sub-$100, but they were last gen's high end) and before that I typically bought low end (sub-$100), but that was 10 years ago.Assuming I don't win another card, though I voted $100-$149, I think sub-$100 is pretty decent, and if I had to buy now, I'd probably go for a Radeon 4670. I want something that'd run games at 1600x1200, since it's my monitor's resolution, but I'm willing to do without FSAA and other eye candy, if there's need, and 30fps is typically enough for me (even less, for games that aren't action games). The programmer in me likes to have the latest tech (DX10.1, ...) even if I don't use it. I also prefer lower power cards, if possible.
I'll certainly be tempted to buy a DX11 card when they come out, but will wait for something like the 4670 for that gen.
gochichi - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
I tend to want some decent performance, but really these days an HD 4670 makes a compelling case for a second or third computer.I guess what I'm saying is that value is important when you're talking about multiples. I would have "never" really considered having more than one up to date "gaming" rig but with prices falling for a performance level that I think is quite good, then I don't see why limit oneself to one expensive card, when there may be more value in having a LAN party ready to happen at all times.
So, given the state of things right now, I think it's really difficult to come up with a reason to spend over $150.00 while if I needed to (in order to play the best games (not just the most demanding games, the BEST ones)) then I could certainly go to $250.00 per say. I for one don't think the prices are going to go that high for regular "upper mainstream" needs.
Now that we've tasted affordability, I think a lot of us aren't going back.
Also, I think more than ever, I would say my very highest concern in terms of cost is on energy efficiency. Why? Because I've done away with building my own computers, I buy Dells now and they only come with 300-350W power supplies and I don't want to change them. So basically I don't want the hassle of a pricey card. I look at the current $250+ offerings I quite simply don't want them at ANY price. Literally, if I could buy a double-slot card that needs a 550W power supply for $50.00 I would pass.
I currently have an HD 4850 and I simply don't see the use of more. In fact, the HD 3870 that it replaced was plenty fast. I simply couldn't pass up the boost per $ of the 4850. So it's not a cut and dry thing.
Some products come around and they are compelling. For example, the 9800GT 512MB edition was hard not to want.. it was $200.00 and it was cool running and energy efficient. So again, the $ amount of the pricier cards is only one of the reasons that I don't want them... most of them (just look at the size of the cooling and the power draw) are no more than overpriced prototypes.
What I am currently MOST interested in is a better half-height (or low profile) offering that doesn't need a six-pin power and the like. I am basically waiting for a HD4670 level of performance in a half-height but it doesn't look like it's going to come. I would pay $150 for such a card even though the performance per $ would be way low. Because it would fit my very nice slim desktop (the extra computer).
So to beat a dead horse, I don't think I'm alone on this. We want a compelling product FIRST AND FOREMOST, and if it's compelling enough many of us will come up with the money so long as it's not that much money (the difference between $70 and $ 150 is over 100% but it's still a reasonable cost).
So... so long as there are $130 offerings with better power envelopes and sufficient performance there is no way no how that I'll spend more for a less appealing product. I want to support research and development with my dollars, not marketing hype...
nubie - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
I voted for the $50-99 segment (And why not? You can get an 8600GTS all the way to a 9800GT in that price segment, including the ~$70-on-ebay 9600GT smack dab in the middle of that segment.)With a +/- $50 tacked on there.
Buuuut, if I had any money at all I would probably have shot into the $150-200 segment, again with $50 leeway.
I base the money I am willing to spend on what I ask the card to do, namely I ask my card to run dual 1280x1024 screens in a stereoscopic 3D setup (one for the left eye, one for the right). Thus I have decided that a 9600GT (or a decent 8800/9800 series card with 512MB if it falls under $80) is probably the best choice considering I have no money coming on a regular basis.
If I was to move up to dual 1650x1080 or a single 2560x1600 then I would start looking up the chain at a ~$100-250 card. I don't think that getting 10% better FPS is worth 200% the price, so I tend to find the sweet spot that balances my system with my card, and offers the very best value for money.