• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Which low - mid tier GPU's are better right now?

Wasn't even aware that the original 3060's had 12gb since they came out in a time where I wasn't researching into PC parts. Thanks for the warning and advice. I'm still not sure what to get but I think I'll stay away from a 1660 super (They seem overpriced anyway), I look more into 3060's and 5700XT's (Which are what I originally wanted anyway), as well as maybe other cards like a 1080ti and a 2070.
Looking into RX 6600's now. I honestly don't need amazing graphics (I prefer pure performance) for what I need its at a good price of around 200 dollars and gets solid performance (Though worse than 5700xt or a 3060). It might be what I look into the most. Only 8gb of vram but like I said earlier I don't worry too much about amazing graphics. Open to more suggestions as well.

Edit: I'd prefer a 3060 obviously but it's a bit more expensive and the used/refurbished market for it seems very sketchy. I'm just not sure about it yet.
 
What part is nonsense? Where do you get that idea from?

There's a version of the 3060 that has 8GB so it has 33% less VRAM and 33% less memory bandwidth than the original 12GB 3060 version included in all reviews. But Nvidia still calls it a 3060 which is a crap deceptive naming system. This is it right here:

I'm not getting into this debate.

Looking into RX 6600's now.
That's a much better option on the AMD side of things. The RX-5xxx series for modern titles is just not worth the money being asked for them currently.

Edit: I'd prefer a 3060 obviously but it's a bit more expensive and the used/refurbished market for it seems very sketchy. I'm just not sure about it yet.
The reason I made the 3060-12GB recommend is because I've used such a card. They are a sweet-shot card for performance/cost/room-to-grow perspectives. If you can save a just a bit more, it's worth the extra.
 
That's a much better option on the AMD side of things. The RX-5xxx series for modern titles is just not worth the money being asked for them currently.
Agree. 6600 (XT) has awesome performance for its power consumption.
 
Lex did what I thought about suggesting. CPU/GPU video that gets you a rough idea what to expect.
System temps are usually the most interesting thing to watch in this day and age.
OP isn't fussy about a few fps or ULTRA MAX++++++ settings but I'd bet a theoretical 20C lower temps would make a difference.
 
Looking into RX 6600's now. I honestly don't need amazing graphics (I prefer pure performance) for what I need its at a good price of around 200 dollars and gets solid performance (Though worse than 5700xt or a 3060). It might be what I look into the most. Only 8gb of vram but like I said earlier I don't worry too much about amazing graphics. Open to more suggestions as well.

Edit: I'd prefer a 3060 obviously but it's a bit more expensive and the used/refurbished market for it seems very sketchy. I'm just not sure about it yet.
FWIW, I've seen the 6600XT go on sale under $200 at some points. If you're looking for a good value new card then the 6600 and 6600XT/6650XT are your only good bets right now. I do agree that looking at the used market is preferable but if you're truly uncomfortable with that then you're on the right track for a new card.
 
Lex did what I thought about suggesting. CPU/GPU video that gets you a rough idea what to expect.
System temps are usually the most interesting thing to watch in this day and age.
OP isn't fussy about a few fps or ULTRA MAX++++++ settings but I'd bet a theoretical 20C lower temps would make a difference.
Speaking of. I found another review from JegsTV who shows the following;
Ignore the prices as those are new only. In this one, he shows a wider range of card lines for consideration.
 
Last edited:
Single card (w/current or similar cpu) tested over multiple games with optimized settings is a good next step - or timekiller.
 
I would say older high end/flagships are better than newer mid tier, if they have more VRAM as that offers somewhat more future proofing. FSR means you need to worry about DLSS feature being supported on the GPU. Although also be wary older cards are less power efficient and will lose support in drivers earlier.
 
3060 12 vs 8 (1 year ago)

1725861482599.png


A re-review of some older GPUs against today's (4 months ago)
3060 is the 12G

1725861538338.png

In my region used 5700XT asking price is 150-200€, for the 3060 12G is 250-300€
I sold my 5700XT within a week for 150€ about 6-7months ago
Ah, this is new. Haven't heard anything about this latest development. I actively avoid HWU because of how unreliable, inconsistent and sometimes dishonest that channel can be. I'm also raising an eyebrow given that, as of this moment, no one else is talking about this. Makes me wonder what they're pulling this time...
Not so latest... This is known for a year now

 
............n...NO!
A used rtx 3060 or rx 6750xt over that anyday
Considering both that I have a 1080ti currently on my 5950x bench, and that they can be a good chunk cheaper than a used 3060, I'd rather save the cash and keep trucking along on Pascal if I'm stuck on a budget. FSR works, don't need raytracing, it's still a solid card.
 
not sure why that I see nvidia used cards cheaper then amd on classifieds. so gave up on finding amd. 6800xt selling for more then 3080rtx which performds less then the 3080. I even see 6700xt selling for more then 3070. I wanted to buy amd but their longevity of drivers is more problematic then nvidia and I hate nvidia but no choice. and price too.

I also looked at the 5700 and 6600xt but I wanted to jump a bit higher then my rx590 as my best card. I see many 3060ti for just a smidge over the 6600xt which is a nice jump above.


good heirarchy comparison list.


im considering either 3060ti 3070 or 3080. based on a good price. 3060ti will hold me off for now but will need to update sooner. 3070 is in between. and wont hold me off for many years. 3080 will hold me off for at least 8 years. but that TDP FFS!!! its like paying the card over twice.
 
What part is nonsense? Where do you get that idea from?

There's a version of the 3060 that has 8GB so it has 33% less VRAM and 33% less memory bandwidth than the original 12GB 3060 version included in all reviews. But Nvidia still calls it a 3060 which is a crap deceptive naming system. This is it right here:

Here review of this version
 
Hey everyone, I've been looking into upgrading my GPU recently, originally I wanted a 3060 but I decided that the price at the moment is a bit more than what I might want to spend and it's also probably just not necessary for the games I play (Mainly Fortnite).

So I then started looking at a 1660 Super but I've found that a 5700XT is cheaper. I was wondering if there was any other GPU that's good for a price of around 200 dollars (Or any reputable refurbished/used places to get a GPU) and if anybody has input on a 1660 super vs 5700XT. I know 5700XT on pure speed is faster but are Nvidias features worth the more expensive price?
If it's available in your area 6600XT for under $200 would be the better choice. NewEgg has an open box one on sale for $179 or new for $189
 
FSR is a thing that works perfectly fine. Paying more for another upscaler is asinine.

If you say so...


"With DLSS enabled at 1440p and 4K you can expect an improved and stable level of detail with particle effects, along with superior fidelity of tree leaves and vegetation rendering, providing a more comprehensive and immersive presentation, particularly during motion, when compared to the native TAA or FSR 3/XeSS solutions. With DLAA enabled, the overall image quality improvement is even higher, offering the best graphical experience overall when compared to the TAA solution, FSR 3, DLSS or XeSS. In this game, FSR 3 is the only upscaling solution that struggles to retain details in moving vegetation, resulting in shimmering and pixelation."
"Speaking of overall image quality with different upscaling solutions enabled, the FSR 3 image has the most unstable image quality compared to other available upscaling solutions. It struggles to retain details in moving vegetation and small thin objects, such as fishing nets, resulting in shimmering and pixelation both in motion and when standing still. The FSR 3 image also has a degraded quality of particle effects, especially visible on fire, sea waves and water effects in general. The typical disocclusion artifacts with pixelation in motion are also present, especially around Senua's hair when moving through the world or around her sword during combat. Running FSR 3 in "Native AA" mode will reduce the visibility of these artifacts, but unfortunately won't eliminate them completely. Also, the overall image quality with FSR 3 enabled looks noticeably softer compared to DLSS even when the sharpening values are equal, but not as soft as TSR and XeSS that do not use sharpening at all."
"Every swing of the players weapon or any fast movement of your character in general is followed by very visible pixelation, ghosting and smearing artifacts, which is very distracting, especially during intense boss fights. The FSR 3 image also has a degraded quality of particle effects, especially visible on fire, waterfalls and water effects in general. As this game is not using the 3.1 version of FSR, enabling FSR 3 Frame Generation with FSR upscaling will exaggerate the ghosting and pixelation artifacts to be even more visible during gameplay. To alleviate any concerns over the GPU hardware used, we tested FSR 3 upscaling and Frame Generation using not only a GeForce RTX 4080 GPU, but also a Radeon RX 7900 XT, to see how FSR 3 upscaling and Frame Generation would perform on different GPU architectures—the results were identical."
"The FSR 3 implementation has visible pixelation in moving vegetation and tree leaves with heavy disocclusion artifacts, mainly around the main character in motion. The pixelation and disocclusion artifacts are the most visible and distracting when driving a speeder, and when aiming down sights during combat. The FSR 3 image also has a degraded quality of particle effects, such as neon signs, laser effects, fire and explosion effects, waterfalls and water effects in general. On a positive note, the FSR 3 image is free of ghosting or smearing artifacts.
Unfortunately, in this game the XeSS 1.3 implementation in its DP4a mode does not work correctly on any quality mode except "Ultra Quality." The overall image on XeSS "Quality" mode and below is extremely pixelated, aliased and jittery to the point that we think that the built-in antialiasing just isn't applied at all. The difference in antialiasing quality between XeSS "Ultra Quality" and "Quality" modes is even visible in our screenshots across all resolutions. Also, even with XeSS "Ultra Quality" enabled, the image is still noticeably softer compared to FSR 3 or DLSS in "Quality" mode. Something is definitely wrong with the XeSS 1.3 implementation in this game, and it needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
The DLSS Super Resolution implementation is the only upscaling solution that is stable in motion in this game. It is free from pixelation in moving vegetation, we didn't observe any ghosting or smearing artifacts. The particle effects are rendered with a stable level of detail without any breakups in motion, providing a more comprehensive and immersive presentation, when compared to FSR 3 or XeSS 1.3 solutions."
 
4070 series or wait for RDNA4 (with RDNA3 going on sale as well, when they hit)

DLSS/DLAA beats FSR any day of the week tho and TPU have like 50+ game comparisons that confirms it.
 

I myself have the Sapphire RX 7600 and I am satisfied with it for my usage scenario. I never let the card run a '100% usage' GPU load.
Since the card has aggressive clock speeds compared to other RX 7600 cards, it gets pretty loud under full load.

If you were to buy the RX 7600 and plan to use them under 100% load, I recommend the following versions.

ASUS Dual Radeon RX 7600 OC Edition 8GB GDDR6 V2
Powercolor Fighter AMD Radeon RX 7600 8GB GDDR6
XFX Speedster QICK 308 AMD Radeon RX 7600 Black Edition
Powercolor Hellhound AMD Radeon RX 7600 8GB GDDR6

I think the above four versions of this card are going to make less noise than the Sapphire Pulse RX 7600 (overclock) under 100% load.

The RX 7600 can run Fortnite at high FPS on Ultra settings, even at 1440p.
So it matters pretty much nothing for 1080P or 1440P whether you run Fortnite on a RX 7600 or a RX 7900 XTX.
 
To be fair we're seeing games use over 8GB even at 1080p. Pax Dei (yes I know it's early access) will eat 11GB for whatever reason. All depends on what OP wants to play.
I don't think 1080 Ti VRAM is eaten up, never seen that on mine, using at 2k all stay around 8Gb mark. VRAM at 352 bit and is fast enough to not stack up texture ques, maybe not playing the right titles. Same textures on 192 bit will prolly start piling up. You can see in Last of Us tests, stutter on 4070 with 192 bit but, not on AMD counter with 256 bit.
 
If sticking with Nvidia, I would buy 30 series and up. 10 series not even on the radar, maybe a 20 series if the deal is good enough..

But in this era of AI...

haha :nutkick:
 
  • Like
Reactions: las
True! It's a solid card!

Can't agree here though. The baseline 3060 performs just below an RTX 2070, and at a much lower wattage/heat profile. For the price it's a winner IMHO. Of course, I'm one of those people that likes the 4060's for the same reasons aside from price.
By Watts and Heat yes, 3060 wins over 1080 Ti or 2070.
 
I don't think 1080 Ti VRAM is eaten up, never seen that on mine, using at 2k all stay around 8Gb mark. VRAM at 352 bit and is fast enough to not stack up texture ques, maybe not playing the right titles. Same textures on 192 bit will prolly start piling up. You can see in Last of Us tests, stutter on 4070 with 192 bit but, not on AMD counter with 256 bit.
You'd be surprised. Some games are just dumb and eat vram and I've seen the 1080ti vram get filled. Have one on my bench currently for BOINC purposes but do game test here and there.
 
6600 XT, 6650 XT, 7600, 3060, 4060 - whichever is the cheapest of the bunch.
 
I would not consider anything less than RDNA3 or if you can wait to early 25' RDNA4 low end cards.
 
I don't think 1080 Ti VRAM is eaten up, never seen that on mine, using at 2k all stay around 8Gb mark.

The top 9 GPUs currently most popular according to steam all have 8GB VRAM versions.
Game developers who choose to develop games that do not run perfectly with 8GB VRAM simply shoot themselves in the foot.
The largest group of gamers simply won't be able to run the game optimally then, and a game developer loses a lot of potential buyers that way.

You also used to have this debate between 4GB and 8GB, but the reality is that with 4GB VRAM you can play >95% of the old games.
And a lot of the new games actually still run well on old mid-range cards with 4GB VRAM too.

Some new games that still run acceptably on old 4GB VRAM cards.
RX 580 4GB
RX 580 4GB & RX 470 4GB
RX 580 4GB
RX 580 4GB
GTX 1650 4GB https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Satisfactory+1.0+gtx+1650
RX 580 4GB
RX 6400 4GB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_AUi3Oij1E
RX 580 4GB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2n1w0re4Yc
RX 580 4GB
The above cards also just have little processing power on top of the 4GB VRAM limit.
With more processing power, they could obviously run the games better.

The number of new AAA games that 4GB VRAM owners can still run just fine is at least 30 times higher than what most 4GB VRAM gamers will ever be able to play.
On top of that, you have the fact that they can run pretty much all old games perfectly on high/ultra 1080p settings.

Was 4GB a wrong choice for the RX 570/RX 580?
I guess that it hardly matters to most gamers whether they chose the 8GB or the 4GB versions back then.
 
Back
Top