That single, simple sentence cuts to the core of what people on the hunt for a new graphics card are looking for: The most oomph they can afford. Sure, graphics cards are complicated pieces of modern technology, powered by billions of transistors and countless other types of intricate hardware, but people just want to crank the detail settings on Far Cry and just plain play.
Answering the question can be a bit trickier than it seems. Raw performance is a big part of it, but factors like noise, the driver experience, and supplemental software all play a role in determining which graphics card to buy, too.
Let us be your guiding light. We've tested graphics cards of all shapes, sizes, and price points to nail down exactly what you can expect for your money--from itty-bitty $90 cards to gargantuan, $700 behemoths with not one, but two graphics processors and custom watercooling loops. We'll also talk a bit about the "extras" that can sway your buying decision, like Nvidia's ShadowPlay software and AMD's performance-boosting Mantle API, and we'll issue buying recommendations for various price points. Finally, I'll update this article with performance data from every new GPU that launches going forward, so you'll always have the most recent information at hand.
Graphics cards are expensive. Choosing one can be complicated. But it won't be after reading this. Let's dig in.
The gear we used for testing
Hold your horses! Before we dive into raw numbers we need to detail our test system and the cards we've tested. If you want to jump right into the juicy benchmarks, skip ahead to the third page. Buying recommendations are on the final page of this article.
Still with me Great. Here are the details of our test rig. Yes, it's powerful--and definitely overkill for gaming--but that eliminates any pesky potential bottlenecking situations in the system. For more information you can check out our build guide for PCWorld's graphics testing PC.
We tested as many different GPUs as possible--one GeForce GTX 750 Ti, one Radeon R9 290X, et cetera--with a preference for models with custom cooling solutions, in order to mimic as realistic a scenario as possible. A couple of high-end reference cards are also included.
Models of all current Nvidia GPUs have been benchmarked, but you'll notice some missing Radeon models, such as the R7 260X and the R9 285. This is due to a few things: PCWorld's graphics card review coverage was kind of light the past couple of years, and AMD hasn't released much new graphics hardware since fall 2013. Plus, wowee the Radeon R-series has a lot of different GPUs! So we gathered as many models as we could. As I said, I plan to update this article with each and every new mainstream GPU launch, so the gaps should start filling in quickly once the next-gen Radeons start rolling out.
The graphics cards we tested
Without further ado, here are details about the specific graphics cards we tested, from lowest-priced to highest. Click through each link for a full list of specs from AMD and Nvidia.
First up is the AMD Radeon R7 250X. While various models with 1GB of RAM can be found for around $80 online, we tested a slightly more expensive (now apparently discontinued) Asus R7250X-2GD5 with 2GB of GDDR5 RAM paired with a 128-bit memory bus, a custom dual-fan cooling solution over a large heatsink, and Asus' typically outstanding build quality. (I love how the company etches connection names into the metal next to each port!) The 95W card is clocked at 1.02GHz, packs 640 stream processors, and requires a 6-pin power connection. For ports, there's DVI, VGA, HDMI, and DisplayPort.
Next is the Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti. Most models cost between $120 and $160, depending on the included features. Stock specs include a 1020MHz base/1085MHZ boost clock, 640 CUDA cores, and 2GB of GDDR5 memory paired with a 128-bit bus. We tested a $150 (after rebate) EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti Superclocked, which ships factory-overclocked at 1176MHz base/1255MHz boost. It includes single HDMI, DisplayPort, and DVI-I connections, but here's the really nifty thing about the 750 Ti: This power-sipping graphics card requires no supplemental power connections whatsoever. It draws all its juice over the PCIe connection.
The AMD Radeon R9 270 has clock speeds up to 925MHz, up to 1,280 stream processing units, and up to 2GB of GDDR5 memory over a 256-bit bus in stock configurations. Online prices range from $130 to $150 after rebates and discounts. We tested a $150 HIS model with the company's custom IceQ X2 cooling solution, dual BIOSes, and other overclocking-friendly features, though it's rocking stock clock speeds. It needs a 6-pin power connection and packs HDMI, DVI, and a pair of Mini-DisplayPort connections.
The thirstier AMD Radeon R9 270X needs two 6-pin power connections, but it offers up to 4GB of RAM and 1050MHz clock speeds with the same 1280 stream processors. Prices typically range from $150 to $200 online. The $190 VisionTek model we tested packs 1030MHz base/1080MHz boost clock speeds, a custom dual-fan cooling solution over a beefy heat sink with supplemental heat pipes, and--notably--a killer limited lifetime warranty for both parts and labor. It packs HDMI, DisplayPort, and both DVI-I and DVI-D connections.
The Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 has been discontinued in favor of the newer GTX 960, but we're still including it in the roundup. Stock specs include 1,152 CUDA cores, 980MHz base/1033MHz boost clocks, and 2GB of RAM over a 256-bit bus. Power's delivered over a pair of 6-pin connectors. The Zotac AMP! Edition card we tested was overclocked to a hefty 1111MHz base/1176MHz boost clock, cooled by a custom dual-fan solution and a trio of big copper heat pipes snaking out of a full-width heat sink. It has HDMI, DisplayPort, DVI-I, and DVI-D connections.
The newer $200 and up Nvidia GeForce GTX 960 packs the newer, supremely power-efficient Maxwell GPU architecture that first appeared in the GTX 750 Ti. While stock versions of card, which has 1,024 CUDA cores, are clocked at 1127MHz base/1178MHz boost, that energy efficiency allows graphics cards makers to apply beefy overclocks out of the box. The two cards we tested--the $210 EVGA GTX 960 Super Superclocked and $210 Asus GTX 960 Strix DirectCU II--are clocked at 1279MHz/1342MHz and 1253MHz/1317MHz, respectively. The former requires an 8-pin power connector, while the latter needs a 6-pin. You can find more details in PCWorld's GTX 960 review.
The AMD Radeon R9 280X is essentially a faster, smarter, cheaper version of the previous-generation Radeon 7970 GHz Edition flagship. Sporting 2,048 stream processors, the stock version packs 3GB of memory over a 384-bit memory bus and an 850MHz base/1000MHz boost clock. Prices range from $230 to $250 online after discounts and rebates. The $230 Asus model we tested pushes the boost clock to 1070MHz and sports Asus' excellent DirectCU II TOP custom cooling system. The card requires one 6-pin and one 8-pin power connector, and offers HDMI, DisplayPort, and DVI-D and DVI-I ports.
The AMD Radeon R9 290 packs 2,560 stream processors and 4GB of RAM with an ultra-wide 512-bit memory bus. It rocks a 662MHz base clock and 947MHz boost clock, with the same power pin setup as the R9 280X. These cards pack HDMI, DisplayPort, and dual DVI-D connections, and in the wake of the GTX 970's launch can frequently be found for $240 through $270--an extraordinary steal. We tested a reference model supplied by AMD.
Speaking of, the Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 boasts 1,664 CUDA cores, 4GB of RAM ( ish) over a 256-bit bus, and a 1050MHz base/1178MHz boost clock. Prices start at $330. We tested an EVGA GeForce GTX 970 FTW with ACX 2.0 cooling (whew!), which--as the name implies--utilizes EVGA's quiet, long-lasting ACX 2.0 cooling technology and boosts clock speeds to a hefty 1165MHz base/1317MHz boost, with plenty of room left for overclocking. This card delivers such a compelling price-to-power-to-performance ratio that it forced AMD to drop prices of its flagship R9 290 and R9 290X graphics cards by hundreds of dollars.
AMD's flagship single-GPU graphics card, the Radeon R9 290X, rocks 2,816 stream processors. The card's base clock speed is 727MHz, which boosts to 1000MHz when needed. Like the R9 290, its RAM utilizes a spacious 512-bit memory bus, with both 4GB and 8GB versions available. Versions with 4GB of RAM can be found for $300 to $350 in the wake of the GTX 970's launch; add another $100 for 8GB models. The R9 290X has the same power requirements and port configuration as the R9 290. We tested a reference model supplied by AMD.
Nvidia's single-GPU flagship, the GeForce GTX 980, is powered by 2,048 CUDA cores. It features the same 4GB of RAM and 256-bit bus as the GTX 970, with clock speeds of 1126MHz base/1216MHz boost. You'll need a pair of 6-pin connectors to power this 165-watt card, which sports HDMI, DVI-I, and three DisplayPort connections.
Finally, we have an utter beast of a graphics card, the borderline ludicrous AMD Radeon R9 295x2, which rocks two--count em, two--of the graphics processors found in the Radeon R9 290X. This card is so monstrous that it comes with an integrated closed-loop water cooling setup and a 500W thirst for power. You'll want a spacious case and a 1200W-plus power supply with two free 8-pin power connectors to run it. In exchange, you get 5,632 stream processors, 8GB of RAM with a 512-bit bus, a 1018MHz clock speed, and enough firepower to chew through any game without breaking a sweat. We tested an XFX Hydra Edition model.
Whew! Still with me Good. With that out of the way, let's dive into the performance benchmarks!
By the numbers
After all that preamble it's time to dive into the heart of the situation: Which graphics card within your budget gives you the most bang for your back
We subjected every card to a gauntlet of synthetic benchmarks and real-world games to try and answer the question, measuring power use all the while.
A couple of quick notes: All Radeon R9 290X figures are in "Uber" mode. Transitioning the card to "Quiet" mode usually only resulted in about a 1 frame-per-second difference in our tests. Results for the EVGA GTX 960 SSC are using the default "dBi BIOS." Switching to the card's "SSC Performance BIOS" typically improved frame rates by 1 to 3 fps in our games suite, with one glaring exception: The EVGA SSC hit 60.18 fps in Bioshock Infinite in dBi, but that leaped to a whopping 76.01 fps with the Performance BIOS.
Without further ado, let's dig in.
First up is Bioshock Infinite, an old standby that serves as a great stand-in for the Unreal 3 Engine. Unreal 4 has been announced, but it hasn't begun showing up in mainstream games yet.
(One more note: A zero frames per second score in these graphs means we didn't test the game at that resolution and graphics setting with the particular card.)
Next up: Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition. This recent remaster of the thrilling action game cranked the graphics to 11, and even modern graphics cards have troubles hitting 60fps with details settings turned up. In fact, none did in our tests. Seeing the Radeon R9 295X2 top out at 50.7fps at 1080p was a bit perplexing, but the result was the same after multiple retests. Interestingly, it hits similar frame rates at 2560x1600 resolution, which pushes around twice as many pixels as 1920x1080.
Likewise, Metro: Last LightRedux is a remake of the utterly superb Metro: Last Last, which you should absolutely play if you haven't yet. It runs on 4A Games' custom 4A Engine. We test the game with SSAA disabled because the feature cuts frame rates in half--and the game looks gorgeous enough without it.
We also tested the cards with a pair of traditional benchmarks: Unigine Valley and 3DMark 11 Fire Strike.
We'd be remiss not to talk about the power efficiency and temperatures of these GPUs. As you can see, Nvidia's Maxwell GPU architecture is a power-sipping savant. AMD's R9-series graphics cards run hot and loud in comparison, though models with aftermarket coolers are still plenty quiet for everyday gaming.
And look at that Radeon R9 295X2! The dual GPUs gobble electricity like it's going out of style, but despite that the integrated water cooling setup helps the behemoth run remarkably cool and quiet.
Extra! Extra!
Beyond raw performance stats, both AMD and Nvidia offer a slew of extra features--normally software-related--to coax you toward Team Red or Green, respectively.
Some of those features are common to both companies, though each naturally puts its own brand on the technology and the technical implementations may be slightly different. Two relevant, standout examples: High-resolution downsampling and the quest to eradicate pesky screen tearing artifacts.
Recent graphics cards from both AMD and Nvidia allow you to choose to render games at resolutions higher than what your monitor actually supports--all the way up to 4K resolution--then apply a filter to downsample the image to your display's native resolution in real time. Doing so provides a far crisper picture than you'd usually see, and you won't have to muck with anti-aliasing, either. On the downside, rendering games in such high definition can put a big hurting on your frame rate, so you'll only want to do this in games where you're seeing ridonkulous performance already.
Nvidia's implementation is dubbed Dynamic Super Resolution, while AMD calls theirs Virtual Super Resolution.
Both companies are also trying to eliminate screen tearing and stuttering by forcing your graphics card and your monitor to synchronize their refresh rates. Each implementation requires compatible monitors, however. Monitors supporting Nvidia's G-Sync technology have already started to appear on store shelves, but G-Sync requires an extra hardware module that drives up the cost of the display. AMD's FreeSync can work over a standard DisplayPort 1.2a connection--no extra hardware (read: cost) required--but compatible displays have yet to hit the streets.
With that out of the way, here's an overview of some of the highlight features for each individual brand.
Nvidia
Nvidia has a few aces up its sleeve.
On the hardware front, the new Maxwell GPU architecture is vastly superior to AMD's R9-series cards in terms of thermals, noise, and power efficiency. It's a night-and-day difference. If you're building a power-constrained computer or a small form-factor PC where heat is a major concern, you'll want to strongly consider going with an Nvidia graphics card.
Nvidia's GameStream technology lets you stream full-blown PC games to a Nvidia Shield handheld or tablet, which you could then connect to your TV for a living room gaming sessions if you wanted to. GameStream holds up very well, streaming games at low latency on home networks. It's slightly less useful now that Steam's killer in-home streaming feature is live and rockin', however.
Some software features also stand out. Nvidia's ShadowPlay is hands-down the best option for video recording your gaming sessions, delivering practically no hit on frame rates. Next, Nvidia's multi-frame-Sampled anti-aliasing (MFAA) smoothes out jagged edges similarly to traditional multi-sample anti-aliasing, but with far less of a performance impact--giving you the same level of eye candy with a decent-to-big frame rate boost. MFAA works in any DirectX 10 or DX11 game that supports MSAA; in fact, Nvidia's GeForce Experience software enables MFAA by default in compatible titles.
Speaking of GeForce Experience, most gamers give Nvidia the edge when it comes to software polish and driver support, though AMD's working hard to dispel that belief with initiatives like the recent Catalyst Omega driver.
AMD
AMD holds some key advantages as well. Most notable software-wise is Mantle, a graphics API that grants game developers "closer to the metal" access to Radeon hardware and eliminates CPU bottlenecks. In the right hands and with the right CPU/GPU configurations, the frame rate increases can be downright staggering. Developers can also opt to use Mantle to deliver far smoother performance rather than staggering frame rates when you're using a multi-GPU CrossFire setup, as Firaxis chose to do with Civilization: Beyond Earth.
There are some crucial gotchas though: Only a handful of games support Mantle, and the most mind-blowing performance increases typically come when you're using a low-end processor or APU. What's more, it remains to be seen whether Mantle will continue gaining traction once the very similar DirectX 12 ships with Windows 10 later this year, as it supports all major hardware configurations--not just Radeons.
But until AMD launches its next-gen graphics hardware to counter Nvidia's Maxwell-powered GeForce 900-series GPUs, the Radeon cards' true strength lies in their price-to-performance ratio. AMD has long been the favorite for price-conscious gamers, and steep price cuts in the wake of the GTX 970 and 980's launch have only driven that home. You can more often than not find the flagship Radeon R9 290X selling for right around $300 these days, and that's with a fancy aftermarket cooler.
So which graphics card should you buy
Many charts and many thousands of words later, we're finally ready to answer the question: Which graphics card within my budget gives me the best bang for my buck
$100: If you're looking to spend $100 or less, the AMD Radeon R7 250X is your best choice. It's no barn-burner, but it will let you play modern games at 1080p on low to medium detail settings.
Under $200: The Radeon R9 270X is a solid choice, especially if you can find one on sale around $150. You'll need to dial down some detail and anti-aliasing settings in especially demanding games, however.
But it's worth giving the Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti honorable mention here, because it doesn't need any supplementary power connections whatsoever. That, plus its humble 300W power supply requirement, means the GTX 750 Ti could add a big graphics punch to a low-end system with integrated graphics for just $120.
$200: The GTX 960 is clearly the best pick of the cards we've tested, delivering very playable frame rates with high or ultra settings at 1080p resolution. Its silence, coolness, and power efficiency are top-notch, too. But note that while we haven't been able to test its Radeon counterpart directly--the R9 285--other sites report that AMD's card offer similar performance, albeit in more power-hungry fashion.
$250: The Radeon R9 290 can't be beat here. This high-end card was selling for $400 less than six months ago. Insane!
$300 - $500: Nvidia's GeForce GTX 970 is a beast of a card at $330, despite the recent firestorm over its memory allocation design and incorrect initial specs. The card bests AMD's flagship R9 290X in our trio of games at both 1920x1080 and 2560x1600 resolution, has plenty of overclocking overhead if you want to push it further, sips power, and runs far cooler than AMD's graphics cards.
That said, if you plan to game on multiple monitors or on a 4K monitor, the Radeon R9 290X's memory configuration makes it better for pushing insane amounts of pixels. And if you're gaming on a single non-4K monitor, opting for a $300 Radeon R9 290X over a $330-and-up GTX 970 could save you some real dough with minimal performance impact--assuming you can find one of those $300 deals, that is.
$500 and up: There's no question: The $550 GeForce GTX 980 is clearly the most potent single-GPU graphics card on the market today. Its insane power efficiency is just icing on the cake.
The dual-GPU champion: Finally, the $700 Radeon R9 295X2 is just in a league of its own--as it should be, with a pair of graphics processors crammed into a single card. If you can afford the sticker price and the sky-high power usage, this behemoth utterly demolishes any single-GPU graphics card you can buy. And with prices hovering around $695, its now sells for less than half of its original $1550 sticker price.
Note, however, that you could buy a pair of Nvidia GTX 970s and run them in SLI for roughly the same price and performance. But you'd lose the Radeon R9 295X2's single-card form factor, kick-ass integrated water cooling, and--most notably for the high resolutions you're likely gaming at, if you're considering a card like this--AMD's memory configuration, which as I said earlier, is better built for pushing anti-aliasing settings while gaming at ultra-high-resolutions when compared to the GTX 970's odd memory design.