ASUS TUF Gaming RTX 3060 Ti now on sale for $479.99 on Amazon

[Olong Johnson]

If anyone else has been waiting for this particular model to drop back to MSRP, here is your chance to finally get it! The ROG STRIX and TUF series cards are the best you can get. Yes, the MSRP is higher ($480 instead of $400), but in this case you get what you pay for. Don't wait too long. This sale could end at any time.

https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0985YLRB3?context=search

 

[Eusebio Rufian-Zilbermann]

It looks to me like there is a rush to reduce unsold inventory of current generation cards before the RTX 40xx start coming out in October

[abacab]

I don't think I ever spent over $150 on a graphics card...

[kitekrazy]

4 hours ago, abacab said:

I don't think I ever spent over $150 on a graphics card...

You're due.  

[abacab]

39 minutes ago, Paul Young said:

You're due.  

I'm not hardcore. Just a casual gamer, and I did spend $149.99 on an ASUS GeForce GTX 1650 two years ago. It does everything I need it to, gets insane FPS on classic games. And does very well on most games from the last 10-15 years, running on an i5-9600K.

And I spent $129.99 for an MSI GeForce GTX 950 2GB GDDR5 around 6 years ago. That one is still working well on an older PC, a 3rd gen i5-3570K.

Edited September 9, 2022 by abacab

[kitekrazy]

2 hours ago, abacab said:

I'm not hardcore. Just a casual gamer, and I did spend $149.99 on an ASUS GeForce GTX 1650 two years ago. It does everything I need it to, gets insane FPS on classic games. And does very well on most games from the last 10-15 years, running on an i5-9600K.

And I spent $129.99 for an MSI GeForce GTX 950 2GB GDDR5 around 6 years ago. That one is still working well on an older PC, a 3rd gen i5-3570K.

Same here.  I have a 9800GT still running in another system.   I avoid many modern games that require a boutique card.  Those are usually crap and bloated.  If I were to do a DAW only build I would go with an CPU with built in graphics.  Those processors are more affordable.   I think graphics cards are the most overprice piece of hardware these days.

[abacab]

15 hours ago, Paul Young said:

If I were to do a DAW only build I would go with an CPU with built in graphics.  Those processors are more affordable.   I think graphics cards are the most overprice piece of hardware these days.

I used to feel that way.

But I have noticed lately that some music programs and plugins with an active and animated GUI tend to make use of my GPU. So there's likely a case to be made for a discrete GPU in a DAW to enhance performance.

Every time I see my GPU use percentage bump up, I'm glad that my CPU isn't bearing that extra graphic processing load and has a GPU to offload it to. Definitely do agree that they are way overpriced now, especially the high-end boutique models. I can typically build a PC for the price of one of those, LOL!

[Christian Jones]

I'm actually in the market for this higher end card, as I'm in the process of slowly building a mega daw where every component is around ~$450-600. It will take  me about 8 months to collect all the parts and I was going to buy the graphics card last (I also mess with video, so I wanted a higher end card) because of the price fluctuation that happens w/ graphics cards and availability. I read a news tip recently that yeah the 3060 as well as the other 30xx cards were going to be marked down by a lot in September '22 to make way for the 40xx line. Dang, maybe I should go for a 3080ti.. 

[Christian Jones]

But this particular card in the first post hasn't been marked down by that much yet.. I expected a larger markdown. This is the card I was after and it hasn't been marked down at all yet ASUS ROG Strix NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti V2 OC Edition Gaming Graphics Card (PCIe 4.0, 8GB GDDR6, LHR, HDMI 2.1, DisplayPort 1.4a, Axial-tech Fan Design, 2.9-slot, Super Alloy Power II, GPU Tweak II) https://a.co/d/eDiwiOE

[abacab]

20 minutes ago, Christian Jones said:

I'm actually in the market for this higher end card, as I'm in the process of slowly building a mega daw where every component is around ~$450-600. It will take  me about 8 months to collect all the parts and I was going to buy the graphics card last (I also mess with video, so I wanted a higher end card) because of the price fluctuation that happens w/ graphics cards and availability.

You do realize that even for that build, the GPU is probably the least important factor, unless you need to render in 3D. ?

[Starship Krupa]

As part of my quest to build a quiet PC (that will still allow me to do 3-D adventure gaming and NLE work), I recently got a passively-cooled nVidia GT1030. Couldn't be happier. It even runs the GPUAudio FIR convolver. Only draws 30W at full tilt. It runs any of my games (MYST Online Uru, Event(0), Manifold Garden, Obduction, etc.) in highest quality, and works a treat for 2-monitor stuff.

The GTX 550Ti it replaced ran its fan constantly, even when not using the 3-D engine.

If the only thing I were doing with my system were DAW work, anything with 2G DDR5 would be fine. For that alone, there's no performance difference between the 550Ti and the 1030. I didn't try it with the i7-6770's onboard video.

[Xoo]

45 minutes ago, Starship Krupa said:

As part of my quest to build a quiet PC (that will still allow me to do 3-D adventure gaming and NLE work), I recently got a passively-cooled nVidia GT1030. Couldn't be happier. It even runs the GPUAudio FIR convolver. Only draws 30W at full tilt. It runs any of my games (MYST Online Uru, Event(0), Manifold Garden, Obduction, etc.) in highest quality, and works a treat for 2-monitor stuff.

 

I've got one of these too - very nice for everything I throw at it, although it's not the greatest if you want to use the GPU for rendering in, say, Vegas.  It can do some offload, but it's not really noticeable.  It's a definite step up in performance from my previous (GT700 ?- I can't remember ) - Cakewalk track redraws etc are much smoother now, which surprised me.

[abacab]

PerformanceTest

This is a pretty cool benchmark tool from the developers of MemTest86. You get a separate score for 2D and 3D performance, so you can judge how well your current GPU compares to other computers. Free trial software works without a license, but after 30 days use of the advanced features are limited to the paid ($29) license.

One practical use case would be to test a GPU that you bought to replace the CPU integrated video. Some years back I bought a Nvidia GT700 but it did not do much better than my Intel HD. So I returned it and bought a GTX 950. Much betterer!!! 

https://www.passmark.com/products/performancetest/index.php

What features are unlocked when purchasing a license? https://www.passmark.com/support/performancetest_faq/license-features.php

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by abacab

[Christian Jones]

11 hours ago, abacab said:

You do realize that even for that build, the GPU is probably the least important factor, unless you need to render in 3D. ?

What do you mean? I don't game much, though I might, but I do intend to do heavy video editing plus I'm getting like nine 4tb drives. Just kidding about that many drives, but this daw will be as much a video editing daw as, well, a daw daw lol. This will also be my last build for the next maybe 8 years. What's wrong with getting a super powerful GPU for all that? 

[BTP]

2 hours ago, Christian Jones said:

What do you mean? I don't game much, though I might, but I do intend to do heavy video editing plus I'm getting like nine 4tb drives. Just kidding about that many drives, but this daw will be as much a video editing daw as, well, a daw daw lol. This will also be my last build for the next maybe 8 years. What's wrong with getting a super powerful GPU for all that? 

If you edit 4K video it's reasonable to get something like an RTX 3060  but you won't get much better performance if you buy a more expensive GPU. You get more performance gains on 3D graphics.

[abacab]

11 hours ago, Christian Jones said:

What's wrong with getting a super powerful GPU for all that? 

Because super-heavy video editing will not really use the high-end 3D capabilities of a super GPU. You would be just as well off with something that accelerates your 2D performance.

Video editing is not actually a real-time process. So investing that money in more hard drives would probably suit you better for video editing.

A high end GPU is marketed specifically at the 3D gaming crowd, as it is designed mainly to calculate the polygons in the 3D mesh in near real-time, as well as rendering light and reflections and other visual FX. That's also great if you plan to do 3D animations similar to Pixar, as the 3D engine can be used to show live 3D previews in some software.

Maybe inquiring with the vendor of the video editor of your choice for the type of GPU they recommend may save you a lot of bucks. Or maybe they have a FAQ or forum with that info.  As BTP mentioned above, video editing at higher resolution of 4K will increase your GPU requirements, but you will not see the performance gains that 3D users will see.

Edited September 10, 2022 by abacab

[antler]

3 minutes ago, abacab said:

Because super-heavy video editing will not really use the high-end 3D capabilities of a super GPU. You would be just as well off with something that accelerates your 2D performance.

Might the extra onboard RAM on higher-end cards help in this respect? (Sorry if it's a stupid question - don't know much about video editing)

[abacab]

12 minutes ago, antler said:

Might the extra onboard RAM on higher-end cards help in this respect? (Sorry if it's a stupid question - don't know much about video editing)

Interesting question that I don't have an answer for. But here is a list of video card 2D benchmarks. Looks like the difference in scores is mostly related to the CPU & GPU combination used in the test.

2D Graphics Performance List

"When looking at the 2D Graphics Performance, there are a myraid of factors that can affect the overall performance. Expensive videocards may not equate to fast 2D Performance. The score can vary due to video card and CPU combinations, driver versions, memory and CPU speeds, OS Patches (e.g. Meltdown and Specter), etc. As a starting point, below is a list of the 2000 most common Video Card and CPU combinations submitted."

https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/g2d-performance.html

[abacab]

45 minutes ago, antler said:

Might the extra onboard RAM on higher-end cards help in this respect? (Sorry if it's a stupid question - don't know much about video editing)

Found an example for GPU memory specs  on the Adobe graphics hardware recommendations for Premier Pro:

"Both Premiere Pro and After Effects are engineered to take advantage of the GPU."

• "Premiere Pro: We recommend a GPU with at least 4GB of memory (VRAM)."
• "After Effects 22.0 or later: We recommend a GPU with at least 8GB of VRAM. "

Edited September 10, 2022 by abacab

[Starship Krupa]

11 hours ago, Kevin Perry said:

I've got one of these too - very nice for everything I throw at it, although it's not the greatest if you want to use the GPU for rendering in, say, Vegas.  It can do some offload, but it's not really noticeable.  It's a definite step up in performance from my previous (GT700 ?- I can't remember ) - Cakewalk track redraws etc are much smoother now, which surprised me.

I tried a GT 720 and it was....not great compared to my old GTX550Ti. nVidia got kinda sleazy about their product naming for awhile.

There was actually a version of the GT 1030 that uses DDR4 that is absolute poop. Same name, same price, hard to claim that it was anything other than an attempt to mislead consumers. Shameful. Having worked in multiple corporations, I suspect that the ploy worked in thousands of cases. IT department submits a purchase order for a dozen GT 1030's to upgrade the set of Dell towers they're buying for the design department, purchasing department finds the lowest possible price....which turns out to be a wretched dumpster of a card. The design department never notices because their new systems are at least faster than the old ones, and they blame AutoCAD for any sluggishness. As long as nobody stays late to play games on their work computer, they'll never know the difference.

Some twerp at nVidia probably looked at the results of some research that indicated that most of the video cards that they were selling to Fortune 500 companies weren't getting anywhere close to their actual performance limits. Opportunity: sell them a "premium" card at the same price that they'll never notice is a slug. Give it the same name. I suspect that the whole GT 710/720 thing came from a similar place: hey, what a deal on a "700 series" graphics card. Except that it's not until you get to the GTX 750 Ti  that you have a 7xx with the expected performance.

If their products didn't work so well in the array of applications I use, this sleazery might be enough for me to look elsewhere. But they do work well, and they at least pay lip service to excelling for applications other than gaming. Plus, I like the way their drivers make things look with Direct X (no, the AMD drivers don't look exactly the same).

I found the performance with Cakewalk (and Vegas) to be noticeable between the GT 720 and the GTX550Ti, but not so much between the GTX550Ti and the GT 1030, which may confirm my suspicion that what really matters most in those applications is how much and how fast the GDDR5 memory goes. Despite being old, the GTX550Ti has 2G of DDR5, and I think that makes it so it still hauls at 2-D tasks. The GT 1030 eats its lunch at gaming because newer, faster processor.