Hey folks, my 7 year old EVGA GTX 970 4GB card is finished unfortunately. Its been a great card. Video cards are ridiculously expensive right now so I'm not sure what my options are as of right now. However I need some advice on a good replacement that is at least comparable to the GTX 970 as I do not want to downgrade because I still use the PC for gaming and music and video editing. Amazon has a fairly economical Nvidia card called the GTX 1050 Ti but what I don't like is that in a comparison video I watched, even though it came out after the 970 it appears to be all but inferior to the 970.

They've got a GTX 1660 which I'm assuming is a step up from the 970 but its way too over priced. I'm also not up to date with video card tech so any suggestions on a comparable card would be appreciated. Also, does anyone know of any other hardware suppliers like Newegg that may have something in stock and at a reasonable price.

I don't mind going the second hand route but only if I can find a trusted SimHQ member who has done sound transactions here in the past as I really don't trust an ebay purchase on something like this. Thank you.

I will continue our dialogue in PM (didn't realize you posted here until this morning, sorry) - but, for now, to touch on a few of your points/questions:

The way Nvidia card GPU numbers works isn't what you might think. A 1050 is a newer series (10-series) but is actually inferior to the older, 9-series 970. Changes from one series to the next do tend to make improvements overall...but it's the second part of the GPU number (i.e. 970 or 1080) that generally indicates overall relative performance. For example: You had a 970. Within the 900 series cards, the lower end (like a 945 or 950) are the lesser performing units, and the higher numbers (970 or 980) are the highest-performance units within that series. Increasing the series but going to a model card that has lower numbers in the second part of the number doesn't mean performance will necessarily increase and could mean it actually decreases. Often - though not always - a higher series by one step will equal a lower model by one step, meaning a 1060 would compare roughly to a 970

Here are some hypothetical examples to help illustrate this:

From a 970 to a 1050: Performance would decrease, since the "50" is actually two steps below a 70 (there's a 1060 in between: 1050, 1060, 1070)

From a 1060 to a 980: This would likely yield a modest increase. Depending on the game, the balance of the system, and the exact model of the card (like stock vs factory overclocked etc) the 980 will range from slightly edging out a 1060 to somewhere around 15% graphics processing increase (note this **does not** absolutely mean 15% "more FPS" - see below.)

From a 970 to a 1060: Performance would be somewhat comparable. The series number is one higher (10 vs 9) and the second part of the GPU model number is only one increment lower (70 vs 60). It should be mentioned that the 1060 comes in two different types, and depending on manufacturer's design, factory overclock, the exact game(s), and balance of the system, the 970 could do very well...but, overall, the 1060 would probably just barely edge out the 970 in most instances. I specifically chose this as an example because it illustrates the point well about the lower model number compared to a prior series higher model number (1060 vs 970).

The 1660 you mentioned is a substantial increase over a 970 (two series but only one model number less), but as you've noted is expensive (as are most GPUs these days, both used and new). A 1660 is roughly comparable to somewhere between a 980 and a 980Ti, which would be 18~22% performance increase above the 970. If you wanted to avoid the price of a 1660, then a 980 might be a compromise worth considering: It is a reasonable bump over your prior 970, and you might find one for a good deal less than a 1660. You might also consider a 1060, as well.

One note: If your system is likely to need replacing, and you're looking at buying a GPU now out of necessity, you might consider what kind of GPU you'd want in your *next* build (which will replace your current build). I say this, because otherwise, if you buy a direct replacement now and then in a year decide it's time to upgrade, you might've done better to consider an upgraded GPU now and then move it to the new system when the time comes. Basically it saves you having to buy two GPUs in a (relatively) short period of time. Knowing this might make the price of a more expensive card a little easier to swallow, if you can 'migrate' it to your next build (of course, this depends *a lot* on how big a jump you think your next system will be).

A caveat about FPS:

The misuse of simple FPS as a means of accurately gauging graphics card performance is a whole dissertation unto itself which I'll not go into here. A lot of self-appointed "experts" might argue this point - they'd be wrong. But, that said, it *is* a common way of comparing one card/system to another..."When in Rome", as it were.

I own (or have at some point) and have done extensive, first-hand testing of all these cards (plus lots of others), and I've also done builds with all of them...so I am not simply relying on internet forum "experts" or reviews online.

Also, there are sometimes other features introduced between series, and it's important to consider those as well...for example, Nvidia incorporated support for "GSync Compatible" monitors at the driver level, but only in the 10 series or higher; it doesn't work on a 900-series card. If this is something that matters to an individual, then (using an example from above) even if a 980 is *slightly* more capable, they might still want to go with a 1060, because it offers Gsync Compatible monitor support, where the 980 does not.

You'd also want to consider memory: Sometimes there are 'unusual' configurations of memory that can make a difference - some cards came in both 2G and 4G versions, for example. Your ex-970 was an interesting and unique critter in that regard: They had 4G physical memory on them, but there was a well-known and widely publicized problem with the last 500M on the cards. The final 500M was situated on a *very* constrained interface compared to the first 3.5G of memory, basically choking performance any time that last 500M was utilized (this was illustrated conclusively in a number of tests, and Nvidia lost a lawsuit over this, IIRC). In any event, the "effective" memory on a 970 is essentially 3.5G...and, if we assume 1080P resolution, really anything 3G and up is adequate. Just have to remember: More memory doesn't always make a card 'better'. Some cards actually had memory that they're not likely to be able to use in a meaningful way (there was a GTX760 that had 4G as I recall...but a 760 isn't likely able to process that amount of textures at anything like a 'playable' level).

Where to buy: As you mentioned, NewEgg is one place - they have decent sales, but tend to be a little overpriced unless you catch a sale. Be patient. If you live somewhere there is a MicroCenter nearby, it's definitely a good option. Amazon has sales sometimes, but there is legwork involved finding good deals. There are other sources but as you mentioned you have to be careful who you deal with.

On that very point, a final thought: All the foregoing is reasonably valid technical information (some is based on opinion, most on fact) offered to improve the reader's understanding of sometimes complex technical factors. However, there is no substitute for a trusted advisor with substantial, verifiable experience, preferably at a professional level. After 40 plus years in the field, I can assure you that everyone who thinks they are is actually *not* an expert. The info above is a lot to digest, but it should help illustrate the importance of a trusted, professional advisor.

I hope this helps and welcome any questions.

Just a For What Its Worth:

The new relatively low cost AMD RX6500 XT reference GPU and a boosted version are selling on Amazon right now for MSRP. $199.99 for reference, $219.99 for boosted with 2 fans. Nominally, it plays games at 1080p and usable frame rates. Should do better than RX570.

I bought the boosted version -- arriving today. I'll test it to see if it really is any good and give a bit of feedback in the "AMD" thread.

Attached is a chart from a Tom's Hardware review that compares it to some of the GPUs discussed above. It compares favorably to the Nvidia offerings.

The new cards (e.g. AMD 7000 series) are coming out by the end of the year. Since prices are falling, one might get one (from AMD or Nvidia) at MSRP. They are said to blow away the current cards. So, not dumb to wait.

Hence, the RX6500 XT (or similarly priced Nvidia card) would only be a cheap place holder for a few months -- or until the new releases sell at MSRP.

Since you may prefer Nvidia, this may not apply. So, FWIW.

With all due respect to other distinguished forum members, the 6500XT has also been panned as an abysmal step backwards by AMD. These cards use only 4 lanes of the PCI Express bus, so that no matter what version of PCIe your setup supports, you will only be using four lanes (of potential/typical 16). In laypersons terms, this is essentially cutting 16 lanes of traffic on a highway down to four - and most anyone can imagine what ensues.

These cards, IMHO (and that of some other industry professionals - see below) are good for one thing and one thing only: Price. And while there's no doubt that a $200 price tag in today's GPU market seems very hard to believe...well, you know what they say about "If it seems too good to be true..."

The chart from Tom's only shows one GPU I mentioned, a 1060...and, as I explained, the 1060 is only comparable to the OP's current 970. The other cards I mentioned (980, 1660...) are better choices (although, yes, they might cost more...as we all know, you get what you pay for).

Although I do not trust online reviews exclusively - and I'm typically not a big fan of Steve at Gamer'sNexus...his reviews are widely respected. Here's a review he did on the 6500XT: >AMD RX 6500 XT is Worse Than 2016's GPUs< (Note: Pay particular attention to the part between about 3:00 and 6:00 where he discusses the problem(s) with the 6500XT - a lot of limitations specifically to reduce cost, including some that affect other features beyond just gaming FPS...for example, there is discussion about decoding/encoding support for H.265/HEVC, which would likely matter to someone streaming or doing music/video editing (which was mentioned in the OPs post above).

The 6500XT appears to be a good idea to keep the scalpers and miners from buying it, thus not disappearing from the market before it's even available. It's also bound to appeal to those looking at the lowest price point for a card even worth considering.

But, particularly if someone's looking to move up from the level of a 970 - and perhaps even more so if there's a system upgrade anywhere in the near future - it might not be the best choice.

Here's another review from a reasonably respected source:

AMDs mining-averse RX 6500XT also isn't great at gaming

Some excerpts:

The card's four-lane PCI Express 4.0 interface also poses a problem...it causes problems for PCs that use PCI Express 3.0; TechSpot's review found that using a PCIe 3.0 connection with the RX 6500 XT knocked off 10–15 percent of the card's already lackluster performance.

Even for people who don't play games, the RX 6500 XT cuts some corners that make it less useful...The GPU's video encoding and decoding capabilities have also been cut down...the card can't encode either H.264 or H.265 video streams, features that help reduce the load on your CPU...

Price? Yes. Performance? Maybe...or maybe not.

Features outside of gaming...maybe not.

You have reported the review verbiage and feelings the reviews engender correctly.

In my view, if one is gaming and looking for a cheap card to replace an old/broken card, the question is "does the new cheap card do the job I need done cheaply". To me "cheap" means lower cost relative to equal performers -- and sells at (or close to) MSRP.

For typical users, a GPU that games well probably does the other things that need doing.

I'm going to test it the way I use cheap GPUs (replaces an RX550) and see if it does my job (including gaming). I don't claim to know what others want or need.

I'm not a professional reviewer. But, as noted, FWIW I'll write how it turned out based on my personal criteria.

This thread making my fun tests more fun. But, I'm not trying to convince anyone -- just providing information to consider or ignore. I'm just "talking/communicating".

It won't help much but I run a 1660Ti and I think it's a great card. It runs everything I throw at it without a hitch. It's an interesting card, it's position in the market. It's a Turing card, but does not have the ray tracing and tensor cores. When I bought it that was fine, very few games featured ray tracing. That's changed, but I can't miss it if I've never seen it. Performance-wise I think it's great.

The Ti version is 6 GB GDDR6. The non-Ti is GDDR5, which translates to a 288 GB/s vs 192 GB/s bandwidth advantage.

I saw the cheapest 1660Ti's on Newegg were around US$400. While the card is no longer near the top, in the current crazy market that could be a good alternative to give you a better card than the 970, turing architecture, but without breaking the bank.

RX6500 XT 4GB test outcomes:

Important Note: I am not selling or trying to convince anyone. I am merely conveying my impressions for whatever they may be worth to a given individual.

Hardware Used:

Test Results are for my AMD RX6500XT 4GB GPU. These results are based on my personal criteria that I use. If one wants the “whole story” one must use third-party on-line RX6500XT Test Report articles.

The CPU used is an AMD Ryzen 5 5600G APU -- on chip graphics. This is probably the weakest current generation AMD CPU a gamer might use. The CPU is important to 1080p performance -- but, not important to 1440p and up.

The Monitor is a low cost 1440p gaming monitor connected with the HDMI connector not the Displayport connector. The card does have Displayport out -- can give better performance. But my test was deliberately "bottom ended" -- to have more relevance to "ordinary use".

PRICE: RX6500XT is virtually the “bottom end” of the new AMD 6000 series GPUs. It sells for MSRP on Amazon. $199.99 for the single fan “reference” model. $219.99 for the two fan, higher clocked “gaming” model. The price of both includes a free game. And one gets 5% kickback using an Amazon credit card. Price-wise this is dirt cheap for a GPU in today’s GPU market. I bought the “gaming” version for $219.99 (including free game and 5% kickback). Still “in stock” for overnight delivery as I write this (3/25/2022). The free game ends tomorrow (3/26/2022)!!!

FPS: FPS wise, all I care about is “smooth” play in my games. Usually, a smooth 30fps without obvious choppiness is good enough (though normally I get more FPS). In summary, I go for how the game “looks to my eyes” as I play it. I care little for the actual FPS measurement. I used to care about FPS until I figured out how little it meant to my enjoyment of a game. But, when writing about a card, FPS is a number that folks can relate to.

Resolution: 1080p and 1440p at good graphics settings is good enough for me to enjoy the games. What’s a good graphics setting depends on the game. Importantly, I do not use “still pictures” to evaluate “moving picture” game-play image quality. I go by what I see while playing. While playing I am not staring at the picture to find fault; rather, I’m enjoying the game. Parenthetically, on my main PC, I play at 4K and ultra (or near ultra) settings – because I can – not because I need that for enjoyment.

Overall Impression of Performance: Using my criteria, the RX6500XT is an adequate minimal gaming card. It actually performs better than I expected. It’s FPS in 3DMark Time Spy beats my RX580 by nearly 20 percent (more than expected). Plays my usual “GPU test games” (Assassin’s Creed Odyssey and Grim Dawn) very satisfactorily. As a note: That RX580 originally cost more than the RX6500XT.

Actual Measurements:

For these, I used the basic AMD GPU driver settings for games (just click "gaming") – no tweaks.

3DMark Time Spy (1440p resolution): Test 1 = 31.63FPS. Looks smooth. Test 2 = 27.14FPS. Smooth until FPS drops to low 20s for periods – then choppy. But, this is 1440p on a GPU intended for 1080p gaming.

Grim Dawn (1440p resolution) all maximum graphics settings – except Anti-Aliasing 2x and Anisotropic filtering 2x (my preferred settings). 60Fps. With Anti-Aliasing at 8x and Anisotropic Filtering at 16x FPS can be in the low 40s – still quite acceptable to my eyes. But, this is 1440p on a GPU intended for 1080p gaming.

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey (1440p resolution) all high graphics settings (just click "high"). AC Odyssey has high end graphics. 37FPS using the ACO Benchmark application. Often plays nearer to 30FPS. Actually, it plays well to my eyes. Only uses 2853MB GPU memory out of 4000MB supplied.

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey (1080p resolution) all high graphics settings (just click "high"). 1080p is what the RX6500XT was designed for. 70FPS using the ACO Benchmark application. Looks fine in-game – played a few minutes.

Assassin’s Creed Odyssey (1080p resolution) all very-high graphics settings (just click "very-high"). 37FPS using the ACO Benchmark application (often ~30fps in game). On a quick play its very usable in-game to my eyes. Though if I played the whole game end-to-end, I assume I’d see issues.

Final Thoughts: This card works for me as a very low cost “emergency” gaming card. It plays the most graphically intensive game I want to play (ACO) at smooth frame rates. I realize other players have different eyes and can be bothered by things I don’t notice the way I play. So, this whole treatise is just a “for what its worth”. Not selling them. Don’t buy one based on my opinions. One should do the research and make one's own decision.

RX6500XT Testing Update:

Change of plans: Based on better than expected performance, I decided to use the RX6500XT 4GB to replace the RX580 8GB in our main HTPC (rather than the RX550 in a secondary HTPC). The system runs W11 Pro.

For fun and to provide SimHQ a total story, I decided to thoroughly test the two GPUs head to head to see which was really best in that application and Assassin’s Creed Odyssey (ACO) on that system. However, I don't actually game on the system.

The relevant specifications of our main HTPC system are 75” QLED 4K TV, R7-3800X CPU, mini-ITX 570 gaming MB, very small case, Windows 11 Pro.

HTPC application use result: The RX6500XT is slightly smaller, uses 6 pin connector (vs. 8pin), runs quieter, runs cooler. Does all we need – we primarily watch live TV and occasionally play Region-2 DVD video disks.

ACO gaming result: At ACO 1080p high-graphics (what the RX6500XT is designed for), the RX6500XT beats the RX580 by a small amount. Both give plenty of FPS. Both are very usable at 1080p (high-graphics and very-high-graphics) and 1440p (high-graphics).

By the time one gets to 1440p (very-high-graphics), FPS stays above 30FPS -- not bad looking in-game -- quite usable. The RX580 may win (untested with new TV setting) by a small amount and might be slightly preferred for ACO at 1440p very-high-graphics – if the prices were comparable.

Again, I'm not selling. Just information FWIW.

Edit: Because I had not gamed on our 75" TV, I had messed up one setting on the TV itself (not GPU settings or in-game settings). With it corrected, RX6500XT 1440p FPS increased. So, now I have no reservations about using it at 1440p at the second highest graphics (very-high-graphics). I did not reinstall and test the RX580.

Thanks all for the info. I'm not familiar with what a Turing card is. I've never personally seen ray tracing at work other than in videos online. I'm sure it looks pretty darn cool in action. I don't buy too many new games recently. There's many I'd like to try just not the time or money. I'm mainly interested in being able to run my old and newer games. My 970 handled Witcher 3 really quite well, steady 60fps until that fight with the boss that used all the ice spell effects. It also ran other 2015 era games perfectly too at max settings with smooth 60fps at 1080p like Mad Max and Alien Isolation and even Prey unlike other Cryengine games which struggled more, especially Crysis 3. As a result it also beautifully ran some older games like Alan Wake and such.

The 1660 Ti variant sounds nice though I was interested in a replacement 970 as I like my original card for the most part. However I'm kind of interested in the GTX 980 as it seems to be a nice step up. As mentioned above though all of these cards are very expensive right now.

I hope that whatever replaces my original GTX 970 at least matches its capabilities or even exceeds them a bit as it would be nice to have an upgrade of some sort.

I'm also noticing while looking online that is seems some newer graphics cards don't have a separate power cable connection. My 970 has two. Is this due to more efficient design of modern cards being able to be solely powered through the main board or is it an indication of perhaps a more budget level card?

Coot, since you mention Witcher 3 (another favorite of mine), I loaded it onto the HTPC attached to the 4K TV and tried it out -- just to learn something for my own use.

On the RX6500XT, Witcher 3 at 1440p Ultra-graphics setting (one click, highest setting) gives mid 30s most of the time and stayed above 30 for the short time I played it. Very smooth/usable to my eyes.

At 1080p Ultra-graphics setting it stayed above 50 the short time I played it. At lower settings it stayed above 60. Very usable for a card intended for 1080p gaming at medium settings.

Also, as noted in the above Edited text, I had my 75" 4K TV setting wrong for Assassins Creed Odyssey. With the correct 75" TV setting, the RX6500XT performed fine with ACO (to my eyes, i.e. above 30FPS all the time, no jitters) at 1440p very-high-graphics settings.

Coot, I realize you are going the Nvidia route. So, this is not a sales pitch. Just completing the story for any who might "give a darn".

Thank you Allen. Yeah I've been kind of sold on Nvidia as that's the brand that I've always had post my 3DFX Voodoo days so its a brand I'm comfortable with. I appreciate all your stats and info though.

Is 1440p the new resolution standard for monitors and gaming? I'm just unfamiliar with it. Is it a step up visually from 1080p? I assume it is but I know there must be some other variables at work. Is gaming standards moving towards this resolution? Seems like I've been using 1080p for many years now between my 2010 widescreen monitor that I'm still using and my HD Samsung tv.

Coot, my personal opinions (other opinions may vary):

Which monitor (size, resolution) makes sense depends on the person and how they use it, how far it is from their eyes.

Serious gaming monitors are usually 27" or 32". 43" is out there. The fast ones deliver above 120FPS -- if the GPU can do it.

Most "normal use" economy monitors are 1080p. Most gaming monitors are 1440p (2K). The normal high end is 2160p (4K) -- and the best games are setup for 4K. 8K is coming.

The new GPUs have special software (in the GPU driver -- sometimes in some games) to make games run at 1440p (2K) and 2160p (4K) and good FPS -- even if the GPU is weak (I did not use that feature in my above raw tests).

My views: The resolution one should use is tied to the monitor size desired and personal preference for FPS versus high-graphics-settings.

I think 1440p is enough for me on a normal size (27" or 32") gaming monitor -- 1080p can work for me on a smaller monitor. At 43", I use 4K so that I don't see "pixels". But, I don't recommend a 43" monitor (its a bit over the top for desk use). Also, the large monitor at desktop distance can negatively affect one's eyes if used enough -- as I've found out the hard way (the large curved gaming monitors are more eye friendly). The eye effect may be age-related (I'm old as humans go ).

FPS is a personal thing. Movies are 24 to 30FPS. Some sports TV channels are 60FPS. So, 30 to 60FPS is enough to look smooth (some folks have eyes that respond quicker and may need above 30FPS). For twitch gaming, human reaction time to visual stimulus is around 0.25 seconds (but some folks may be 0.10 seconds). Personally, I don't "twitch game" and a steady 30FPS (sometimes less) does it for me.

Coot, its really your personal opinion that matters. But, to summarize, I'd recommend 27" or 32" at 1440p and a GPU that delivers at least 45 FPS at 1440p for all your games (covers all the bases). With up-to-date Nvidia GPUs that 45FPS could be boosted (in some games) using Nvidia DLSS. Modern mid priced (MSRP) GPUs can do it. Today's actual prices are "over the top" -- not a good time to buy a new mid priced GPU. Prices are drifting down.

Edit: To get an actual FPS above 60FPS (e.g. 120FPS) one needs a gaming monitor with a "displayport" connector and a GPU with a "displayport" connector. Most current devices meet those requirements. And, one can always set the resolution down to 1080p or 720p to get more FPS in a serious "twitch" match.

If so, pricing is getting better faster than I expected (based on the forebodings I've been reading -- author's guesses). This is a "we'll see" in two months.