Nvidia Graphic Cards Tiers List (LTT version)

[RevGAM]

I'd like to ask the experts their opinion on Linus Tech Tip's tiers list for Nvidia GCs. You can watch the whole video or just skip to the results. I thought, if accurate, it might be a nice reference for visitors looking for advice.

 

If you know of other recent lists, could you please leave a link? Thanks!

[Middcore]

3 hours ago, RevGAM said:

I'd like to ask the experts their opinion on Linus Tech Tip's tiers list for Nvidia GCs. You can watch the whole video or just skip to the results. I thought, if accurate, it might be a nice reference for visitors looking for advice.

 

If you know of other recent lists, could you please leave a link? Thanks!

 

It's not going to be relevant for people asking for advice on what GPU to get because realistically, only 10, 20 (16), 30, and 40-series cards are at all worth buying now for 99% of people (with 10-series about to fall off a cliff). I mean, sure occasionally someone will come along who's trying to play basic games on a Dell prebuilt and their budget is $50 and they can still find value in a GTX 750, but that's a situation where they have basically no options, not one where they have a bunch of options and need advice on which one is best. So it's not useful information for a person trying to put together a system today to know the GeForce 8000 series from 15+ years ago is "S tier." 

 

 

[Fendrick]

The video was not an advice giving video it is just nerd porn.

It would help if people stopped creating different meanings to things that don't require it.

[superjase]

i was a little disappointed that the x70 and x60 versions of the cards were hardly mentioned. i think that most buyers would not be able to afford a 2080, say, and would have gone for a 2070 or 2060. the midrange is where the bell curve is fattest, after all.

[RevGAM]

@superjase @Fendrick @Middcore

 

So if we narrow the list down to rtx 20, 30 and 40, including the various ones in each series, what would a realistic ranking be?

[Fendrick]

Just now, RevGAM said:

@superjase @Fendrick @Middcore

 

So if we narrow the list down to rtx 20, 30 and 40, including the various ones in each series, what would a realistic ranking be?

That is pointless, we would then just refer to a GPU heirarchy and revert to the methods already in use, you have nothing here buddy.

[Middcore]

1 minute ago, RevGAM said:

@superjase @Fendrick @Middcore

 

So if we narrow the list down to rtx 20, 30 and 40, including the various ones in each series, what would a realistic ranking be?

 

Comparisons between the performance of all the individual GPU's in these generations are readily available.

 

Trying to rank each generation based on value at the time they were released, reliability and longevity, new features introduced, etc. would be a pointless exercise that ultimately tells a person trying to pick a card nothing about what they should actually buy.

 

 

 

 

[RevGAM]

3 minutes ago, Fendrick said:

That is pointless, we would then just refer to a GPU heirarchy and revert to the methods already in use, you have nothing here buddy.

Why is it useless? GCs are mostly a mystery to me. 

[RevGAM]

Just now, Middcore said:

 

Comparisons between the performance of all the individual GPU's in these generations are readily available.

 

Trying to rank each generation based on value at the time they were released, reliability and longevity, new features introduced, etc. would be a pointless exercise that ultimately tells a person trying to pick a card nothing about what they should actually buy.

 

 

 

 

Why would that be the case? 

 

 

[Middcore]

3 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

Why would that be the case? 

 

Because whether, for instance, 20 series cards were good value and added a lot of new features when they released back in 2018 doesn't have any bearing on whether you should buy one of them over other options now in 2023! Not sure why this is so hard to get?

 

Let's use a different type of product as an illustration. Imagine you were creating a "tier list" of all of the game controllers (gamepads) ever made. There is a strong argument that in its historical context, the SNES controller should be S-tier: lots of buttons, first mainstream controller with shoulder buttons for your index fingers, relatively (for the time) ergonomic shape. It was a big stride forward in controller design at that point and its design has been influential. Does that mean that you should be using USB adapters or something to play all your games with an SNES pad in 2023? Hell no. Newer controllers have eclipsed the SNES in every way. 

 

 

[RevGAM]

2 hours ago, Middcore said:

 

Because whether, for instance, 20 series cards were good value and added a lot of new features when they released back in 2018 doesn't have any bearing on whether you should buy one of them over other options now in 2023! Not sure why this is so hard to get?

 

Let's use a different type of product as an illustration. Imagine you were creating a "tier list" of all of the game controllers (gamepads) ever made. There is a strong argument that in its historical context, the SNES controller should be S-tier: lots of buttons, first mainstream controller with shoulder buttons for your index fingers, relatively (for the time) ergonomic shape. It was a big stride forward in controller design at that point and its design has been influential. Does that mean that you should be using USB adapters or something to play all your games with an SNES pad in 2023? Hell no. Newer controllers have eclipsed the SNES in every way. 

 

 

First, I left the tracking system up to you.  I think the S category is useless BECAUSE it had little to no bearing on graphic needs today, and is not actually a rank so much as a footnote, imo.

 

Second, I asked for the 3 most recent Nvidia series to be ranked by model, and I never said anything about their value in the past, which is useless today. I'm not nostalgic, I'm looking to improve my understanding of, at bare minimum, current comparative usefulness. You 3 made it clear that Linus made a useless ranking (nerd porn), so why would I ask for something that's already been identified as useless? I'm looking for comparative value now.  "Not sure why this is so hard to get?"

 

Now can you help?

 

 

[Fendrick]

8 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

First, I left the tracking system up to you.  I think the S category is useless BECAUSE it had little to no bearing on graphic needs today, and is not actually a rank so much as a footnote, imo.

 

Second, I asked for the 3 most recent Nvidia series to be ranked by model, and I never said anything about their value in the past, which is useless today. I'm not nostalgic, I'm looking to improve my understanding of, at bare minimum, current comparative usefulness. You 3 made it clear that Linus made a useless ranking (nerd porn), so why would I ask for something that's already been identified as useless? I'm looking for comparative value now.  "Not sure why this is so hard to get?"

 

Now can you help?

 

 

Comparative value depends on where you live in the world, not a secure method.

[Middcore]

29 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

Second, I asked for the 3 most recent Nvidia series to be ranked by model

You didn't actually say by model, you said "rtx 20, 30 and 40, including the various ones in each series, what would a realistic ranking be?" which gave the impression you wanted to rank 20 vs 30 vs 40 overall.

 

If you want performance comparisons by individual model to show how, say, a 2080 Super compares to a 3060 and a 4070 ti, that information is readily available. TechPowerUp is the most convenient reference. Look at their page for any given card model and it will show relative performance comparison. 

 

29 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

and I never said anything about their value in the past, which is useless today.

But that's the type of criteria that's figuring into the tier lists like the one in the video. It's why stuff like the GeForce 8000 series is ranked so high. 

 

29 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

I'm not nostalgic, I'm looking to improve my understanding of, at bare minimum, current comparative usefulness.

Depends on your needs.

 

One we see a lot on this forum is RX 6600/6600 XT versus RTX 3060. The AMD cards are usually better bang for the buck. If you run an application that needs CUDA though or you're determined to turn on ray tracing, then the Nvidia card wins.

 

29 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

You 3 made it clear that Linus made a useless ranking (nerd porn),

It's not "useless," but it's mainly entertainment and history lesson rather than any kind of guidance on what to buy now.

 

29 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

I'm looking for comparative value now. 

Values depends on the prices available to you where you are, and since the 20-series and increasingly the 30-series as well are generally only going to be available secondhand those prices will vary greatly. The performance comparisons are available to you, you can use that information to look at the prices in your area to determine comparative value.

[RevGAM]

5 hours ago, Fendrick said:

Comparative value depends on where you live in the world, not a secure method.

 

5 hours ago, Middcore said:

Values depends on the prices available to you where you are, and since the 20-series and increasingly the 30-series as well are generally only going to be available secondhand those prices will vary greatly. The performance comparisons are available to you, you can use that information to look at the prices in your area to determine comparative value.

Apparently, we are using the term differently. Value is not the exclusive realm of money, and I was not referring to bang for the buck, nor did I imply it. Sorry about that, but it would help if you'd stop making assumptions (and not assume over and over again that what I'm writing is the stupidest possible thing).

 

5 hours ago, Middcore said:

You didn't actually say by model, you said "rtx 20, 30 and 40, including the various ones in each series, what would a realistic ranking be?" which gave the impression you wanted to rank 20 vs 30 vs 40 overall.

But I did. Your interpretation altered the meaning to this: "rxt 20, 30 and 40, including the 20, 30 and 40 series" - what?? Maybe English isn't your first language? That would explain some of the vexation of this exchange. Just like, previously, I was not asking for a tier list like LTT's (but made the mistake of assuming you would understand and provide a methodologically sound ranking) but, rather, I was asking for a tier list in the sense like the PSU tier list - a data driven comparative evaluation. I hope that I've sufficiently cleared up the fog around my request. Please, if you are not sure what someone is asking you to do, request a clarification, and read carefully. When someone clarifies their point, don't argue needlessly just to protect your misapprehension. It is understandable to make mistakes - it is not understandable to defend errors after clarification is provided to correct your misunderstanding.

5 hours ago, Middcore said:

Values depends on the prices available to you where you are, and since the 20-series and increasingly the 30-series as well are generally only going to be available secondhand those prices will vary greatly.

Yes, I know that prices vary from one place to another. so asking for monetary value is not possible, nor was I seeking it. If I'd wanted that, I would've mentioned money. I mean, that should be obvious and that you guys just keep jumping to the worst assumptions is, frankly...frustrating, among other things.

 

Comparative value was actually defined when I wrote:

Quote

"I'm looking to improve my understanding of, at bare minimum, current comparative usefulness."

Quite clearly, I was not asking about money. Besides, you cannot make a monetary decision if you don't understand the comparative value of the things you are comparing for purchase - unless you're just going to do it by "oooh! that one looks pretty with all those stickers and RGB LEDs!"

5 hours ago, Middcore said:

If you want performance comparisons by individual model to show how, say, a 2080 Super compares to a 3060 and a 4070 ti, that information is readily available. TechPowerUp is the most convenient reference. Look at their page for any given card model and it will show relative performance comparison. 

Yes! There we go! Thank you!

 

Elsewhere, I got this informative response, along with several references.

Quote

No GPU is perfect or the best for that matter. No tech hardware is ever perfect  - just some better than others.

Rating GPU comes down to price, performance, features and support and personal likes and probably a few other factors.

And for which games and which display resolutions being used.

And how the games are being played - competitive, multiplayer or single player games with maximum FPS (for the win) or the exact opposite with best eye candy .

 

RTX 20xx is still good to use,  still does 1080p to 4K depending on the version and settings.

RTX 30xx is good - 3050 is not good (3050 is like a GTX 1660 performance but with some ray tracing and DLSS), but the rest are still good. Higher end cards are over priced.

RTX 40xx is still too new to tell and maybe the top of the line is too expensive and the middle and lower models maybe will not be that great - let's wait and see for the releases. 

 

nVidia has become known for playing with pricing in their favor (try keeping prices as high as possible for as long as possible) and releasing models close to the same models - 3060 got a newer release with less VRAM and the 2060 had a newer release with more VRM, the 1060 had two different VRAM models released almost at the same time just to confuse the consumer on pricing, GTX 1600 was released as 1600 and a 1660 Super and a 1660 Ti  for some examples.

Any thoughts on those opinions are welcome.

My Methodology: The way I chose my GC (or VC, VAIB, or GAIB but never GPU) was based on how it compared to my iGPU and how it compared to other GCs (not just AMD), including considering how wide a gap in performance was suggested in the particular graph I was sent by my friend (who put the line for my iGPU's performance in the wrong place) versus other cards that were nearby performance-wise. From that, I chose a range of GCs that were acceptable.  I then scoured 3 websites with competitive prices (after eliminating Best Buy, Walmart and a couple others) to see what the prices were, as well as to get further details on each of the VCs available to help narrow down what to look at. Using a spreadsheet, I compiled the data on all the options (having eliminated brands I was unsure about or had been told to avoid), eliminating columns that were, for one reason or another, useless. I took note of any special deals on the better ones, if it put them within range of my budget, and, lo, I ended up saving $125 on an RX 6800 XT. Given the article by Steve Walton, it appears I was fortunate price-wise, as well as having managed to choose one of the better VCs in his list based on the data I had.

5 hours ago, Middcore said:

Depends on your needs.

 

One we see a lot on this forum is RX 6600/6600 XT versus RTX 3060. The AMD cards are usually better bang for the buck. If you run an application that needs CUDA though or you're determined to turn on ray tracing, then the Nvidia card wins.

That makes sense. The funny thing is, when I hear "CUDA cores", my brain thinks of the Indonesian word "kuda", which means "horse", so then it jumps to it's like horse-power, but for cores, which is funny!

 

Now to digest the references I was given.

[Middcore]

35 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

 

Apparently, we are using the term differently. Value is not the exclusive realm of money, and I was not referring to bang for the buck, nor did I imply it. Sorry about that, but it would help if you'd stop making assumptions (and not assume over and over again that what I'm writing is the stupidest possible thing).

if you use the term "value" most people here are going to quite reasonably presume you're talking about how much performance and utility the product delivers relative to what it costs. 

 

If you intend "value" to just mean the graphics card that does graphics card stuff the best, then a value comparison is basically going to just match the performance hierarchy. By that standard the RTX 4090 has the most "value" of any GPU. It does all of the various things people do with consumer graphics cards better than anything else on the market, bar none. Nevertheless, many people would not consider it good value because it costs an exorbitant price (as much as an entire nice PC). 

 

35 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

But I did. Your interpretation altered the meaning to this: "rxt 20, 30 and 40, including the 20, 30 and 40 series" - what??

The meaning of "rtx 20, 30 and 40, including the various ones in each series, what would a realistic ranking be?" is ambiguous. Does it mean rank all of the cards in those three generations relative to each other? Or does it mean rank the three generations as a whole against each other using some sort of criteria? 

 

I was forced to guess which you meant. Since it would seemingly make no sense for you to ask for comparisons of individual cards with those already abundant, and since you started the thread by bringing up Linus's ranks of entire GPU generations, I guessed the latter. 

 

35 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

Maybe English isn't your first language?

Maybe don't throw questions like this around while insisting on your own definition of the word "value"? 

 

35 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

I was asking for a tier list in the sense like the PSU tier list - a data driven comparative evaluation.

Well, you aren't going to get one, and any attempt to make one would be spurious.

 

The PSU tier list has some value because there are an abundance of different designs made by many different manufacturers, there are no "top line" specs to compare besides wattage and 80+ which are a long way from telling the whole story, and most people are ignorant of the engineering factors which separate a good PSU from a bad one. 

 

With GPU's there are only two companies actual designing and manufacturing the important part of the hardware (not counting Intel yet), the range of products they offer is pretty limited, specifications and benchmark tests that show their performance relative to each other are easy to find, and any differences between, say, different AIB cards using the same chip are too marginal to meaningfully rank them. 

 

35 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

I hope that I've sufficiently cleared up the fog around my request. Please, if you are not sure what someone is asking you to do, request a clarification, and read carefully. When someone clarifies their point, don't argue needlessly just to protect your misapprehension. It is understandable to make mistakes - it is not understandable to defend errors after clarification is provided to correct your misunderstanding.

It is acceptable to sometimes communicate poorly. It is not acceptable to start a discussion with a red herring, ask ambiguous questions, and then be patronizing when people take time out of their day to do their best at providing the answers they think you want. 

 

35 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

Yes! There we go! Thank you!

It seems the root of this matter was that you were, somehow, entirely ignorant of sources showing relative performance comparisons between GPU's... despite such comparisons (with varying degrees of credibility) being extremely easy to find. 

 

Essentially, everybody here said to themselves "Surely he can't just be asking for a list of best performing GPU's or he would have simply Googled it" and then got frustrated trying to figure out what you wanted to know and you got frustrated because you weren't being given an answer to a question you could have Googled. 

 

FYI, now that this discussion seems to have reached its torturous end and we  finally understand each other, I'm going to be putting you on my ignore list now. If we don't interact on the forum I won't be frustrated by your lazy vaguely worded questions and you won't be frustrated at me making assumptions about what you mean.

 

But, PS...

 

35 minutes ago, RevGAM said:

(having eliminated brands I was unsure about or had been told to avoid),

Brand is nearly meaningless. 

 

 

 

 

[RevGAM]

Oh good golly! Stop justifying your mistake by making more mistakes! I cannot help it if you insist on ignoring any definition of the word other than the one you've decided on, and despite indicators to the contrary.

 

Dictionary.com

value

noun

1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

 

 

 

 

"your support is of great value"

 

2. a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.

"they internalize their parents' rules and values"

 

[RevGAM]

11 hours ago, Middcore said:

It is acceptable to sometimes communicate poorly. It is not acceptable to start a discussion with a red herring, ask ambiguous questions, and then be patronizing when people take time out of their day to do their best at providing the answers they think you want. 

This is the last thing I have to say to you. Kindly refrain from responding further to me.

 

You were frustrating, disappointing and insulting. You made the most insulting assumptions about what I wrote, refused to accept the clarifications and refused to answer my request repeatedly. If you're going to behave in such a poor manner, expect that you will be treated poorly in return.

 

Moderator: I'm done. Delete this thread, please.