Calculating Value: Performance per Dollar

Have you ever wondered what you get for your money? Well, I suppose that's a silly question, as anyone reading this page could guess. There are a couple of ways to present this data, and we wanted something simple to understand. It is important to remember that the way we've presented this information, absolute performance is not accounted for at all: the only metric we are looking at on this page is how much you get for the money you spend. Keep in mind that a good deal on 25 frames per second might not be what you are after: absolute performance is important too and we'll be looking at that in the next section. In general, more expensive solutions perform higher, so even if there is lower "value" the performance increase could be worth it to some buyers.

We will be using these prices for this calculation.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 SLI700
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 SLI630
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 SLI400
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+ SLI290
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295500
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285350
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280315
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 core 216225
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260200
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2300
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+145
ATI Radeon HD 4850 X2290
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB CrossFire350
ATI Radeon HD 4850 CrossFire290
ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2440
ATI Radeon HD 4870 1GB220
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB175
ATI Radeon HD 4850145

These prices were gathered from newegg.com and google and do NOT include mail-in rebates.

Our method here is to look at the performance you get for every hundred dollars spent. Specifically this answers the question: how many fps do you get in a specific game for every hundred bucks you spend on a particular graphics card. To calculate this data, we divided our performance data in average framerate by the cost of the card and then multiplied the result by 100. This isn't really a number that means something tangible: it's more just a metric that helps us relate the value of cards within a specific test. You can't compare any of these numbers between games, or even between resolutions, except in terms of relative order -- you need to look at one test and one resolution at a time.

To help out, if all the cards in a test had a score of "10", that would mean for every hundred dollars you spend you get 10 frames per second of performance in our test. Of course, though our value chart shows all the cards on equal footing, more expensive cards will have proportionally higher performance: if you wanted 30 frames per second in that specific benchmark you would need to spend at least $300.

So this isn't the bottom line in what to buy. These benchmarks are an indication of relative value outside absolute performance. Absolute performance is also a value metric: higher performance is more valuable and may be disproportionally more valuable if it crosses a playability threshold. These graphs will help show how much of a premium or a deal you are paying or getting on your absolute performance relative to other parts.

In general, multiGPU solutions will show less "value" than single GPU counterparts because we see less than linear scaling. If a two card solution costs twice as much while performance scales at less than 2x, we'll see a lower "value" result. The single card multiGPU options have a better chance at improving value than two card solutions, as they can sometimes be found for less than twice the cost of their nearest single card single GPU derivative.

Who Scales: How Much? The Test
Comments Locked

95 Comments

View All Comments

  • Hauk - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    To you grammer police... get a life will ya?!?

    Who gives a rats ass! It's the data!

    Your smug comments are of ZERO value here. You want to critique, go to a scholarly forum and do so.

    Your whining is more of a distraction! How's that for gramaticly correct?
  • Slappi - Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - link


    It should be grammar not grammer.


  • SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link

    Grammatically was also spelled incorrectly.
    lol
  • The0ne - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    "In general, more than one GPU isn't that necessary for 1920x1200 with the highest quality settings,..."

    I see many computer setups with 22" LCDs and lower that have high end graphic cards. It just doesn't make sense to have a high end card when you're not utilizing the whole potential. Might as well save some money up front and if you do need more power, for higher resolutions later, you can always purchase an upgrade at a lower cost. Heck, most of the time there will be new models out :)

    Then again, I have a qaud-core CPU that I don't utilize too but... :D
  • 7Enigma - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    Everyone's situation is unique. In my case I just built a nice C2D system (OC'd to 3.8GHz with a lot of breathing room up top). I have a 4870 512meg that is definitely overkill with my massive 19" LCD (1280X1024). But within the year I plan on giving my dad or wife my 19" and going to a 22-24". Using your logic I should have purchased a 4850 (or even 4830) since I don't NEED the power. But I did plan ahead to future proof my system for when I can benefit from the 4870.

    I think many people also don't upgrade their systems near as frequently as some of the enthusiasts do. So we spend a bit more than we would need to at that particular time to futureproof a year or two ahead.

    Different strokes and all that...
  • strikeback03 - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    The other side of the coin is that most likely for similar money, you could have bought something now that more closely matches your needs, and a 4870 in a year once it has been replaced by a new card if it still meets your needs.
  • 7Enigma - Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - link

    Of course. Or I could spend $60 now, another $60 in 3 months, and you see the point. It's all dependant on your actual need, your perceived need, and your desire to not have to upgrade frequently.

    I think the 4870 is one of those cards like the ATI 9800pro that has a perfect combination of price and performance to be a very good performer for the long haul (similarly to how the 8800GTS was probably the best part from a price/performance/longevity standpoint if you were to buy it the day it first came out).

    Also important is looking at both companies and seeing what they are releasing in the next 3-6 months for your/my particular price range. Everything coming out seems to be focused either on the super high end, or the low end. I don't see any significant mid-range pieces coming out in the next 3-6 months that would have made me regret my purchase. If it was late summer or fall and I knew the next round of cards were coming out I *may* have opted for a 9600GT or other lower-midrange card to hold over until the next big thing but as it stands I'll get easily a year out of my card before I even feel the need to upgrade.

    Frankly the difference between 70fps and 100fps at the resolutions I would be playing (my upgrade would be either to a 22 or 24") is pretty moot.
  • armandbr - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/rad...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/rad...

    here you go

  • Denithor - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    Second paragraph, closing comments:
    quote:

    This unique card really shined and held it's own all the way up to 2560x1600.


    Fourth paragraph, closing comments:
    quote:

    But when were talking multiple graphics cards for rendering it's really not worth it without the highest resolution around.


    Please remove the apostrophe from the first sentence (where it should read its) and instead move it to the second (which should be we're).

    Otherwise excellent article. This is the kind of work I remember from years past that originally brought me to the site.

    One thing - would it be too difficult to create a performance/watt chart based on a composite performance score for each single/pair of cards?

    I do think you really pushed the 4850X2 a bit too much. The 9800GTX+ provides about the same level of performance (better in some cases, worse in others) and the SLI version manages to kick the crap out of the GTX 280/285 nearly across the board (with the exception of a couple of 2560x1600 memory-constricted cases) at a lower price point. That's actually in my mind one of the best performance values available today.
  • SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link

    Forget about Derek removing the apostrophe, how about removing the raging red fanboy ati drooling ?
    When the GTX260 SLI scores the 20 games runs of 21, and the 4850 DOESN'T, Derek is sure to mention not the GTX260, and on the very same page blab the 4850 sapphire "ran every test"...
    This is just another red raging fanboy blab - so screw the apostrophe !
    Nvidiai DISSED 'em because they can see the articles Derek posts here bleeding red all over the place.
    DUH.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now