Low-Quality Graphic Card

As we know the last few years haven't been ideal for those who are looking to get modern and powerful graphics cards. The GPUs that Nvidia, as well as AMD, have been releasing had already been pretty good. However, a global chip shortage and cryptocurrency boom have combined to produce an ideal storm that has resulted in sky-high stock prices trying to sell out even before just about all people can get their hands on one.

However, there were several bad GPUs before this. As a result, our recent post was well-received by readers. We're going to try our hand at writing another essay today that examines low-quality graphics chips in response to reader requests.

As previously, please keep in mind that this is only meant to be taken lightly and that you shouldn't be insulted if your graphics card happens to include one of these GPUs. It would be offensive and amusing if you were seeking any type of Intel-integrated graphics on this list, but have no fear—only discrete alternatives apply. Let's review some of the low-quality graphics cards from the past 30-plus years.

Voodoo 3dfx 4500, GPU

Undoubtedly, the Voodoo 5 series of GPUs—of which, distressingly, the Voodoo 4 4500 is indeed a part—is to blame for the demise of the once-dominant 3dfx brand. Each GPU in the Voodoo 5 generation had its problems, including some unpleasant heat ones that reduced their lifespan. Many also didn't work with the common motherboards at the time.

The 3dfx Voodoo 4 4500's fatal weakness was that it was an entry-level GPU that cost more and didn't perform as well as its top rivals, the GeForce2 MX but also Radeon SDR. Due to the Voodoo 5 series' failure, 3dfx went bankrupt. At the end of 2000, its former competitor, Nvidia, stepped in to purchase several of its assets.

Radeon M470X

To kick off our list of the worst GPUs, we choose to focus on mobile devices. To be honest, mobile gaming has generally been fairly bad, and AMD's most recent attempts in this area are now about as, ahh... average, as it gets. Although it was not the most power-efficient, the Radeon RX 400 model was still a relatively excellent bargain for desktop users when compared to Nvidia's Gtx 10 series.

Sadly, this was not good news for such a Radeon RX M400 generation, with the 'M' standing for mobility. On desktops, the RX 470 was the bargaining king and the essential sub-$200 GPU; nevertheless, for laptops, it was the GPU that should be avoided at all costs.

In summary, the Radeon M470X provided performance similar to the RX 460 while using less energy than the much faster GTX 1060. Therefore, AMD's answer resulted in massive, loud, and regrettably much slower computers.

AMD R9 285

The AMD R9 285 demonstrates that AMD may also get the price-performance ratio incorrect, despite the fact that it frequently achieves it. Absolutely wrong. It had 2GB of RAM when it first arrived, which wasn't obscenely little for a cheap GPU in 2014 but ensured that this GPU immediately felt old.

Even worse, at the same time, Nvidia unveiled the GeForce GTX 970, which provided a significant performance boost at a marginally higher cost. There was nothing else available for PC gamers seeking a good value.

Nvidia GTX Titan Z

The Titan family of GPUs from Nvidia is a quirky old bunch. They are highly expensive and frequently give a performance that is absurd, thus PC gamers rarely find them to be worthwhile investments. However, they can also be a fantastic investment for creative professionals that require strong GPUs for visual effects and other demanding workloads.

However, by strongly positioning the GeForce GTX Titan Z as a professional graphics card, Nvidia didn't help itself with the GeForce GTX Titan Z's marketing. However, enthusiasts would be better-suited shopping elsewhere due to its exorbitant price. Even though the Kepler architecture of the card deteriorated gradually, and soon the considerably less expensive GTX 780 Ti surpassed it in performance.

It utilized a dual-GPU setup, which caused compatibility problems. Apparently, Nvidia GTX Titan Z would indeed be limited and frequently underperform less expensive GPUs if a game didn't support two GPUs. Unfortunately, despite its premium price and good hardware, it will have trouble playing contemporary games due to its low DirectX compatibility.

Radeon R9 285

It was challenging for us to decide which GPU to purchase in this category. To keep the selections reasonably current, we really wanted to look back a few years, so we limited our search to a few products from AMD and Nvidia. The Radeon R9 285 was chosen as the final model since it was the first to use the GCN 3rd-gen technology in late 2014, approximately a year before the Radeon 200 sequence was released.

The poor timing of this GPU was one of the main factors in our decision. The R9 285 was unveiled in September 2014 for $250, almost a year after the initial 200 series units appeared. We concluded our evaluation by saying...

"With only 4% enhanced efficiency on aggregate than just the board it will replace, the R9 280, the R9 285 costs $249 and doesn't exactly change the game. The R9 285 is only 6% better than the R9 280, even if you take into account the substantial loss during Tomb Raider, which may have been caused by the driver. We're quite sure if indeed the R9 285 was absolutely essential, but bringing a 4-6% bump for the identical price is certainly not awful."

The GTX 970, which debuted later in the same month, was a further and perhaps more serious problem for the Radeon. A 30% price increase got you a lot more performance with the GeForce. In order to remain competitive, the R9 285 underwent a significant price reduction in the same month.

Although the 2GB VRAM buffer was doubtful, the R9 285 didn't have any major flaws. Instead, its biggest problem was that it came out too late, didn't disrupt the market, and disappointed with the most recent edition of the GCN architecture.