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
ClagMaster - Saturday, February 28, 2009 - link
I purchase a new graphics card every 2-3 years to upgrade my PC. It is easy to sink a lot of money into a graphics card unreplacement unless discipline and restraint are exercised.What is important to me when I consider a replacement graphics card are the following criteria I strictly abide by:
1) The existing graphics card must be service for at least 2 years before replacement.
2) The replacement card must realize at least double the performance and double the memory for the same or less cost of the original graphics card.
3) The replacement graphics card may cost between $150 to $200.
4) The replacement graphics card power draw must be 55W to 65W at full load and preferably be a single slot card.
I am waiting for a suitable replacement for the 7950GT this summer. The nVidia 9600GT does not quite meet the double the performance criteria while it meets my power, memory and cost criteria. The nVidia 9800GT meets the double performance, memory and cost criteria, but fails the power draw criteria. To me, any card drawing more than 65W at load requires too much power.
When GPUs are released this summer with 45nm process, then graphics cards will be released worthy of consideration.
nubie - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
I am assuming you have heard of the 9800 Green Power? It does not require an external power connection (all power comes through the PCI-E slot connection.)I beg to differ on your "double performance" bashing of the 9600GT, by pure numbers it has much more than double the performance in any modern game (AKA one using shaders, like any released in the last 2 years.)
The 7900 series (Which I love, my main card is a 650mhz 7900GS) has 20 or 24 pixel shaders, and 7 or 8 vertex shaders, and 1400mhz DDR3.
The 9600GT has 64 Unified Shaders, is stock clocked at 675mhz and 2,000mhz DDR3.
I had a G92 and G80 card, sold them both, why? Because the older games I was into actually showed a decrease in FPS from my 7900GS. BUT! I recently picked up an 8600 GTS (2,000mhz 128-bit bus ~$40 on ebay), and it really is much much faster in modern shader-laden games such as Grid. I would say that since the 8600GTS is about half a 9600GT and the 8600 will solidly trounce a 7900 card, you can safely get a 9600GT. (Why you don't just get an HD4830 is beyond me, it sounds like your perfect card.)
I think you may be a little too picky with the "65w too much power" argument, after all CPU's have drawn more power than that for years and did you bitch about that? And the GPU is doing so much more work for crying out loud.
Not to knock being picky, I am unbelievably picky, but I channel it into action and modify an existing solution.
Might I suggest a 9800GT with a volt-mod to reduce the power, and clock it back a little? Although if you wait a little bit the factory will release the Green Power model for you.
I don't know why you need a single slot card either, do you demand that your CPU function with a 1U cooler on it? No, of course not, it would be silly. Why force your video card GPU to labor under the heat it can't rid with a single slot cooler?
ClagMaster - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
Getting value from a graphics card is more than performance/dollar at time of purchase. It also means using the card for a certain period of time to recoup your moneys worth. Depreciation on graphics cards is worse than that of automobiles. That's why I will keep a graphics card for 2 years before I replace it.Also, the cost of electricity is high where I live. Performance / watt is important to me -- though I did not adequate express this in the above blog.
I am also picky about the power load because I think it ridiculous a graphics card would draw more power than the CPU. Any PC that requires more than a 350W power supply is a workstation, not a PC.
I currently use an E6600 which draws 65W. I use a 500W Seasonic power supply which could easily power more powerful graphics cards than the 7950GT (65W) in the 100W to 130W class. However, I use 500W because power supplies are most efficient between 40 to 60% of max load -- 250W for my rig at max load.
No, I have not heard of the 9800 Green Power. Where can I find power draw and performance figures for this card. This card may operate at lower voltages, but the frequency is also lower because the G94 chip is being used.
The 9800GT draws 83W which exceeds my criteria. It is possible to reduce voltages but not by much. Its conceivable that 75W could be achieved with lower voltages.
The HD4830 is a very good card with more than double the performance. However, the HD4830 draws 85W while the 7950GT draws 65W.
Both the HD4830 and the 9800GT have better performance/watt than the 7950GT. But I still want to limit loads to 65W.
nubie - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
"Also, the cost of electricity is high where I live. Performance / watt is important to me -- though I did not adequate express this in the above blog."Logically then you should evaluate the time you spend using the card vs not using the card and then find a card that has good idle and load power draw.
This is very very important, you could find that you should use a hybrid-power graphics solution (one that uses the onboard graphics when not in 3D mode), and an ~85 or 90 watt graphics card and still see less energy usage than you do now.
"I think it ridiculous a graphics card would draw more power than the CPU"
Your logic is flawed, if it is doing more work there is a good reason that it is consuming more power. (some estimates show about 10 times the amount of calculation that the CPU does. Why are you so hard on it then?)
"Any PC that requires more than a 350W power supply is a workstation, not a PC."
There is no reason to run more than a 350w power supply for 10 to 20 watts more of energy.
". . . the frequency is also lower because the G94 chip is being used."
No, the G94 chip has only 64 Unified Shaders and is used exclusively in the 9600 series. There is no reason that the G94 should clock less than the G92, I see similar clocks on both the 9800GT and 9600GT series.
As I mention, perhaps your stringent requirements are best met with customization.
I have heard the power arguments before (in a different way, cars that use a lot of gas). Frankly I don't think that 20 watts more of electricity only when you are gaming is a lot.
Do you own a "Kill-a-Watt" device? Have you measured the actual energy usage of your computer? Is the 40-60% load accurate? Would an 85watt card actually draw only 10 more watts at the wall? What is the power consumption of your monitor and speakers?
Are you running compact flourescent bulbs? In this country they cost $1 at a store and use 25% of the energy of a normal bulb.
I don't mind you having a preference, I am just very curious if you are basing your actions on assumptions or on hard data.
I notice that power supplies run on 220v are much more energy efficient, if your country doesn't supply 220v to the wall outlets perhaps you can save a lot of money by putting just your PC on a 220v outlet.
JohnMD1022 - Saturday, February 28, 2009 - link
I once spent $4300 for a PC with no monitor. It was the hottest thing going.Six months later, a faster model, with monitor, was under $2500.
Lesson learned.
If a customer wants something super-hot, and is willing to pay for it, I'll build it, but, generally, I'll recommend something a couple of steps down from the top.
For most people, this puts us into the 4670-4830 range.
Excellent value for a few bucks.
Just an opinion.
blowfish - Saturday, February 28, 2009 - link
I think most people will have a flexibility in their price point that relates to the amount their willing to spend on the card in the first place.So for example, if someone willing to pay $100 typically has $20 flexibility, you might expect someone willing to pay 500 to have a flexibility nearer to $100.
The flexibility histogram would therefore be expected to reasonably mimic the one for the purchase price.
Although I would never buy one of the "halo" cards, I always enjoy reading your reviews of them. It's helpful to read that there's no point in buying anything faster than card X for resolutions of 1680 x 1050 in game Y and so on.
swsnyder - Saturday, February 28, 2009 - link
I'm willing to spend as high as $500 because I know I'll be using the card for 4+ years. But one thing I won't tolerate is for the graphics card to be engineered as a pig.Three power sources (PCI-e + 2 power connectors) and 300 watts of power consumption? For a single graphics card? That is absurd. And don't tell me that it only uses that power when in 3D mode. With contemporary desktop environments your card is *always* doing 3D rendering. And don't get me started about the waste heat produced and the ever-more-extreme cooling methods required to remove that heat.
I won't buy a pig at any price.
Zak - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
Fire up GPU-Z and you will see that your card switches to low speed/power when in desktop mode. Even in Vista with all the eye candy on my 285 drops to something like 100MHz clock from 700MHz and 300MHz memory.But I still agree that I'd like to see smaller and cooler cards.
Z.
alkalinetaupehat - Sunday, March 1, 2009 - link
My rigs are built as toys, and as personal rewards. As a result, I have little issue with spending extra to ensure they're top-notch. Looking forward I plan to do big upgrades every 2-3 years and little things (quiet fans, etc.) in between, assuming of course that it is financially doable.I enjoy the wide variety of video cards available, and also understand that some of it is due to weird circumstances in marketing. The only real issue I have with the current GPU landscape is the concept of renaming cards piecemeal. It can make sense to rename cards IF it makes the product landscape more sensical, but I don't think it is the case currently.
Razorbladehaze - Saturday, February 28, 2009 - link
I'm really glad you did this posting, too bad it was only after the other two multi-GPU articles had come out. Oh well. I am really glad to see Anand focus on readers' input, to integrate into the article, and going further than simple polling but also a briefing to help explain the need/target for the polling.