Kind of weird review, they didnt even try to find a GPU that it is comparable to. Looking at this table, its probably more like a 4050. The thing to note here isnt the performance right now, its the progress compared to like 2-3 years ago. If they can keep the prices at this level and keep improving performance at the same rate, then in another 2-3 years they will outperform everyone in terms of price/performance ratio. Also they have a typo here in the table they misnamed the GPU.
I would argue that prices are easier for consumers to compare so in order to get a good baseline for a review you should try to find a GPU that has similar performance and then compare the prices between the two. That gives you a more useful insight into what you get per $
Kind of weird review, they didnt even try to find a GPU that it is comparable to. Looking at this table, its probably more like a 4050. The thing to note here isnt the performance right now, its the progress compared to like 2-3 years ago. If they can keep the prices at this level and keep improving performance at the same rate, then in another 2-3 years they will outperform everyone in terms of price/performance ratio. Also they have a typo here in the table they misnamed the GPU.
Even worse, the card’s model is ‘7G106’, 7G100 is the series, like saying NVIDIA RTX 5000 series of cards.
Oof yeah that makes it even worse. Cringe for how established of a site tomshardware is.
I feel like comparing it to the 4060 is fair seeing as it’s cheaper than this one.
I would argue that prices are easier for consumers to compare so in order to get a good baseline for a review you should try to find a GPU that has similar performance and then compare the prices between the two. That gives you a more useful insight into what you get per $