• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Assuming same price, what would you buy?

Assuming same price, what would you buy?

  • GTX 1060 6 GB

    Votes: 8,920 49.0%

  • GTX 1630 4 GB

    Votes: 114 0.6%

  • GTX 1650 4 GB

    Votes: 2,170 11.9%

  • RX 570 4 GB

    Votes: 769 4.2%

  • RX 5500 XT 4 GB

    Votes: 2,749 15.1%

  • RX 6400 4 GB

    Votes: 1,336 7.3%

  • Arc A380 6 GB

    Votes: 2,164 11.9%
  • Total voters
    18,222
  • Poll closed .
W1zzard

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
28,757 (3.74/day)
System Specs
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
Assuming all these graphics cards are the same price, which one would you prefer?
 
Hi,
Need a none of the above option.
 
5500XT should be faster in more DX12 games as long as it doesn't run out of VRAM. It's also newer so may have longer driver support. The 1060 is a safe choice while not being much slower, and you'll be able to make games look decent with better textures for longer with the extra 2GB.
 
MrDweezil said:
What's the argument for anything other than the 1060?
Click to expand...
1060 is used, no warranty. or better yet a 1070 used falls into the same price as 1650 new and 6500 XT new € 179,90, and still very few would buy it.
I even got a 980Ti for that price when OC nearly a 1660 super, and only 200W believe it or not. perhaps 1660 could pull ahead with DLLS.
 
Lew Zealand said:
5500XT should be faster in more DX12 games as long as it doesn't run out of VRAM. It's also newer so may have longer driver support. The 1060 is a safe choice while not being much slower, and you'll be able to make games look decent with better textures for longer with the extra 2GB.
Click to expand...
Ah, my mistake. I just assumed the 5500XT was a notch slower than the 6500XT.
 
ThrashZone said:
Hi,
Need a none of the above option.
Click to expand...
And integrated lol think i'd go for a 5700G over those. At least I'd get a cpu upgrade at the same time. But I guess it depends on what the actual price would be.
 
The fastest NVIDIA card. That would be the GTX 1650 I guess. Though maybe the GTX 1060 is still better choice. I would prefer te GTX 1650 Ti over them all.
 
MrDweezil said:
What's the argument for anything other than the 1060?
Click to expand...
Well, one is driver support as pointed out above.

Another is power consumption. Not everyone uses every PC for gaming.

The computer I'm typing this response on has a GeForce RTX 3050 which replaced a Radeon RX 550. I don't game on this system. I do some light image and video editing but otherwise this is mostly used for productivity tasks (e-mail, web, office) on a 4K@60Hz monitor.

It appears that some people here are assuming that this would be for a gaming build. I do not make that assumption because I have multiple PCs with different usage cases.

I would not stick any of these GPUs in a gaming build. And since I already have some entry-level graphics cards my answer is still the non-existent "None of the above" option.

As an owner of both the RX 550 and RX 580 (the latter lives in an eGPU for my Mac mini), there's no way I'd buy the RX 570. That's simply more of the same: five-year old Polaris/Lexa Pro architecture. I bought both of these brand new Radeon RX500 cards below their launch prices when the architecture was already 3.5 years old. There's no way I'd shell out MSRP for these or the RX 570.

And not knowing the actual performance and video driver software quality, there's no way I'd touch the new Intel product right now even if it were competitively priced.
 
Last edited:
Selected Arc A380 because the price will probably be good, drivers will be good on Linux and I want AV1 decoding and encoding. GTX1650 and RX 6400 tied for second choice. GT"X" 1630, well, I have to mock it since I also mocked the RX 6500 "XT" but at least it has hardware encoding and Nvidia has just added vdpau support for Turing for hw decoding on Linux/*BSD and it also does not need additional power unlike the 6500 so it is less pathetic (at least if they don't try to sell it at an absurd price). Realistically though, the only price at which I would "buy" any of these is $0 since I don't have money to spend on a GPU for the foreseeable future.
 
cvaldes said:
It appears that some people here are assuming that this would be for a gaming build. I do not make that assumption because I have multiple PCs with different usage cases.
Click to expand...
If it's not for gaming- buy the cheapest card you can. Only expectation is if you are offloading stuff to OpenCL or CUDA/Tensor cores. In which well none of these are suitable for such tasks.
 
ir_cow said:
If it's not for gaming- buy the cheapest card you can. Only expectation is if you are offloading stuff to OpenCL or CUDA/Tensor cores. In which well none of these are suitable for such tasks.
Click to expand...
That's the exactly why I upgraded from the ghetto Radeon RX 550 (purchased at $65 in September 2020) to the GeForce RTX 3050.

I wanted the Tensor cores in the 3050 for NVIDIA Broadcast. This application does a slick job at processing microphone and camera sources for video conferencing using machine learning.

If I didn't want this functionality, no doubt I would still be using the RX 550 on my daily driver PC (it's mothballed just in case the RTX 3050 dies unexpectedly).

I expect that over time, more consumer usage cases for machine learning will emerge based on what I've seen on iPhone/iOS. I know the NVIDIA Canvas beta also uses the Tensor cores.
 
Looking at the UserBenchmark, the GTX 1060 & the RX 5500 are basically head to head. :cool:

2 GB more ram for the GTX might be an argument, but with the low resolution you're pushing with these it should be hardly an issue.
I would go with the RX 5500 since it's 3 years fresher. Plus AMD drivers getting better with time, while GTX driver support is getting worse for older gen.
 
@W1zzard Is there a way to change my vote? I've accidentally voted for Arc on my phone. :(
 
Voted RX 6400.

Why? Latest card with no extra power needed. Comes in handy and I like the clean look.

Also, the way interest rates are rising here these cards will be all I can afford : (

n1 W1z
 
Arc A380 just because I want to encourage intel to develop better graphics cards so we can have a third real competitor.
 
Hi,
Guess w1zard is fishing to see if anyone would go for the silly 1630 they've been posting about the last few days
Which atm is 13 people :laugh:
 
GTX 1650 is maybe the fastest in the group, but if I needed a new GPU and budget was tight, I'd save up some extra money and went for 1660 Super
 
Hi,
Yeah the list is so silly
Obviously the answer is save another 100.us and get a 3050.
Silly 1630 is 150.us
3050 is 250.us
 
Since 1650 super isn’t an option, it’s a battle between 1060 and rx5500. But my vote goes to 1650, without 6-pin connector of course. For a GPU that isn’t slot-powered, the kids will force me to buy something stronger...:slap:
 
Last edited:
ARF said:
Very old. Year 2016 of release.

Anything other than the 2022 Radeon RX 6500 XT is a mistake.
Click to expand...
I've heard that the 6500 XT is actually pretty decent if you're targeting 1080p/60fps. I want to pick one up just to test it out, they have them for $149.99 open box + 1yr store warranty at the microcenter I buy from. Seems tempting
 
I would buy the Arc, as it has by far the most future potential as Intel's GPU drivers mature, and it offers best in class video encoding and decoding capabilities - that are ahead even on Ampere's at the time.
 
Hi,
Yeah give me some of that awesome intel onboard graphics :rockout:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top