graphics Current Low-Level Cards Vs Old High End

[Catalonia]

We all know the immense performance difference between high end and low end graphics cards. I always wondered when do the current low level cards, like the Nvidia GeForce 210 for instance, reach the old High End performance cards... GeForce 210 > Geforce 4 4600 For example. (I'm not sure if this example is quite adequate) but anyway you get the point. 

 

How the current low level cards stand against old high end? To which generation should we compare? How many years we have to wait to get to that performance in cheap low level cards? 

 

(I'm totally skipping the technology difference here, support for newer instructions, DX, etc) I'm talking about pure raw performance. 

 

 

[ZetZet]

Pointless. No one should buy a 210.

[Starelementpoke]

2 minutes ago, Catalonia said:

We all know the immense performance difference between high end and low end graphics cards. I always wondered when do the current low level cards, like the Nvidia GeForce 210 for instance, reach the old High End performance cards... GeForce 210 > Geforce 4 4600 For example. (I'm not sure if this example is quite adequate) but anyway you get the point. 

 

How the current low level cards stand against old high end? To which generation should we compare? How many years we have to wait to get to that performance in cheap low level cards? 

 

(I'm totally skipping the technology difference here, support for newer instructions, DX, etc) I'm talking about pure raw performance. 

 

 

Too many variables, give me some kinda range.

[Catalonia]

2 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

Too many variables, give me some kinda range.

 

You already have it:  GeForce 210 vs GeForce 4 4600

[Catalonia]

1 minute ago, ZetZet said:

Pointless. No one should buy a 210.

I'm not saying you have to buy a 210. I'm just opening a debate about comparing the evolution of power during the years.

[I am an SSD]

2 minutes ago, Catalonia said:

We all know the immense performance difference between high end and low end graphics cards. I always wondered when do the current low level cards, like the Nvidia GeForce 210 for instance, reach the old High End performance cards... GeForce 210 > Geforce 4 4600 For example. (I'm not sure if this example is quite adequate) but anyway you get the point. 

 

How the current low level cards stand against old high end? To which generation should we compare? How many years we have to wait to get to that performance in cheap low level cards? 

 

(I'm totally skipping the technology difference here, support for newer instructions, DX, etc) I'm talking about pure raw performance. 

 

 

if its price to performance, you wont find a single person recommending newer entry level cards..

Dunno much about raw performance...but all the talk of updating flagships this summer will definitely move entry level cards up the ladder. Just think of a Pascal 750ti equivalent. The card was very good for its price to begin with anyway. 

 

[ZetZet]

1 minute ago, Catalonia said:

I'm not saying you have to buy a 210. I'm just opening a debate about comparing the evolution of power during the years.

it's not possible to get a fair comparison because people don't compare that far back. there are no reviews.

 

also the tech isn't the same, can't compare in games since the older cards don't support shit.

[Guest]

This varies so much, there's not really a straight answer. NVidia GTX cards seem to aim to improve performance by one card each generation. So 960 = 770 = 680, etc. Though this is not consistent and each generation normally has a mid-range sweet spot in performance making it normally the most popular card of it's generation. Popular cards: 660 Ti, 760, 970.

[GER_T4IGA]

The rule of thumb for NVidia would be that the NX0 card is about as fast as the (N-1)(X+1)0 card
Don't ask me about amd though. to complicated naming to apply something as simple as this and things like 7970=280=380 ...

[Gabe]

Well recently me and @TheRandomness made a '2006' PC, and in it we installed two 8800GTXs, which despite their performance back then struggled to really do anything more than play games from the era notably Oblivion (which running in my system on a single 8800 got around 70 to 80 fps at max settings, a far cry from my 'low end' GTX750ti which gets an average 150 to 250fps during gameplay. This shows that the current GPU architectures perform better each generation by a large amount, maybe only the best of the best GPU of the last generations can compete with a respectable GPU before only competing with 'budget' gpus e.g the GTX 680 Vs say a GTX970 or R9 380.

[Moonzy]

with nvidia gameworks, a GTX 960, current mid-tier card can outperform the previous gen high end card, the GTX 780

it depends on many factors, like whether we're dealing with nvidia's marketing scheme or not

Spoiler

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-Spiel-38488/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

 

[Catalonia]

9 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

with nvidia gameworks, a GTX 960, current mid-tier card can outperform the previous gen high end card, the GTX 780

it depends on many factors, like whether we're dealing with nvidia's marketing scheme or not

  Reveal hidden contents

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-Spiel-38488/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

 

 

Sure, but I have my doubts that this applies as well at the very bottom of the line. Again, the 210 seems extremely low performance. Would be nice to run a game and see the FPS compared (again) to a GeForce 4 4600. I'm pretty sure that the GeForce (more than 10 years old) is still more powerful. (shame we have no AGP MB now, to make a fair comparision) 

[iPC]

2 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

if you budget is under $150 for a GPU, I always recommend buying an older but faster GPU vs buying a newer but slower GPU. For example, here is the performance of a GTX 750 ti vs a much older GTX 580. The GTX 750 ti and GTX 580 both cost ~$100 used on ebay but the GTX 580 crushes our 750 ti:

 

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-750-Ti-vs-Nvidia-GTX-580/2187vs3150

 

IMO buying something older but faster is always a better option. 

It will run hotter and require more power and will not have as many features.

[Catalonia]

8 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

if you budget is under $150 for a GPU, I always recommend buying an older but faster GPU vs buying a newer but slower GPU. For example, here is the performance of a GTX 750 ti vs a much older GTX 580. The GTX 750 ti and GTX 580 both cost ~$100 used on ebay but the GTX 580 crushes it:

 

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-750-Ti-vs-Nvidia-GTX-580/2187vs3150

 

IMO buying something older but faster is always a better option. 

Finally an answer that comes a bit closer to the point I'm trying to make in this thread. But if we go back more than one, two or three generations, that low-level card should be more powerful than the top-end card at some point. Question is, how many generations? 

[Catalonia]

5 minutes ago, iPC said:

It will run hotter and require more power and will not have as many features.

Agree. But I would like to talk about pure raw performance. 

[iPC]

2 minutes ago, Catalonia said:

Agree. But I would like to talk about pure raw performance. 

Ok. Sry

[Catalonia]

4 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

it depends on the generation you are comparing it to. This really isn't a completely clear-cut answer as it may seem. I actually made a how-to guide about how to buy a used GPU on places like ebay and craigslist if your budget is small a few months ago:

 

 

Some of my suggested GPUs in each price bracket go back several ganerations, others only a couple. This really isn't a clear-cut easy-to-answer-question. When you are shopping for a GPU I like to compare older used video cards using software like 3dmark and see if I can get more performance/dollar by going used. This is how I figure out whether a GPU is worth buying.

 

Thanks, I will totally have a look at that. Point is, I'm not trying to buy a low level card, in fact this is my RIG http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2ZfYpg

 

I am just curious about how did performance evolve. And again, I'm pretty sure that the 15 years old GeForce 4 4600 is still more powerful in terms of raw performance that the very low-end current GeForce cards like 210. Would you agree?

[Catalonia]

11 hours ago, CUDA_Cores said:

I don't think so. You see the geforce 210 was released at least 7 years after the geforce 4 was released. Back then GPUs were making even larger leaps and bounds in performance then today so no, I would think a GT 210 would've caught up by now. Although I really don't know, as I can't find any benchmarks on the gforce 4 4600 to compare it with the geforce GT 210. 

Actually, after some research, I found out that the 4600 have more memory bandwith, same texture fill rate and probably more horsepower than the mini weak 210 (15 yesrs later!) http://www.gpureview.com/GeForce4-Ti4600-card-135.html

 

 

https://www.google.es/search?q=geforce+210+specs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-es&client=safari#safe=off&hl=en-es&q=geforce+210+memory+bandwidth