Gaming gpu's

Problems? We'll give um a shot
User avatar
Freelance
1337 Krew
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:35 pm
Origin ID: scratched_uk
Battle.net: scratched#2526
steamid: scratched

Re: Gaming gpu's

Postby Freelance » Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:13 pm

That's all very nice, but who the hell would want to play crysis3? It's like eating cardboard. Fuck, that game was dull.
I adblock smilies.

User avatar
iMess
Your base looks nice, can i have it ?
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:36 pm
Origin ID: imesx
Battle.net: wewlad
steamid: imess
Location: Taunton

Re: Gaming gpu's

Postby iMess » Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:19 am

psymon wrote:?? as in, you'd pay +£200 for an 280X if you already had a 760?
That much for 5fps extra? ish?
Surely not...



It was a typo, meant to say 670GTX
If online bullying has taught us anything. It's that people would sooner hang themselves than lose a bit of weight.

User avatar
Merson
Ban Hammer Admin
Posts: 1893
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:26 pm
Origin ID: Merson
Battle.net: Merson#2706
steamid: Merson
Location: Galway, Ireland
Contact:

Re: Gaming gpu's

Postby Merson » Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:03 am

Freelance wrote:That's all very nice, but who the hell would want to play crysis3? It's like eating cardboard. Fuck, that game was dull.

.... It's an example proving my point. Not to mention that Crysis 3 is regarded as one of the most graphicly intensive games out at the moment. It's a benchmark not a game review.
Last edited by Merson on Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
psymon
Unter Peon
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 10:21 am

Re: Gaming gpu's

Postby psymon » Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:02 am

iMess wrote:
psymon wrote:?? as in, you'd pay +£200 for an 280X if you already had a 760?
That much for 5fps extra? ish?
Surely not...

It was a typo, meant to say 670GTX

Even so, you're saying if you had a 670, you'd 'upgrade' to a 280X?
Surely not...

User avatar
iMess
Your base looks nice, can i have it ?
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:36 pm
Origin ID: imesx
Battle.net: wewlad
steamid: imess
Location: Taunton

Re: Gaming gpu's

Postby iMess » Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:40 pm

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/zardon/sapphire-r9-280x-toxic-edition-oc-3gb-review


To answer your question: Yes, i would be really thinking about it. It comes down to what you want from your machine. For Nvidia, you always seem to pay a premium. The 670GTX is a solid card - Merson will tell you that. It's still a relevant card otherwise it wouldn't be included in benchmarks comparisons. However if you are looking for benching, from what i can tell, the 670GTX doesn't have much headroom for clocking as its the cuda cores that are lacking.

There's not much in either of AMD new R9 series and Nvidia's 6xx & 7xx series. Apart from performance vs pocket. The debate will never be won as, when it comes down it the nitty, gritty, it mostly comes from personal preference and your own previous experience. Houlden was a previous 7950 owner and switched to 760 (i think-don't quote me on that) and he's more than happy. However me, personally, wouldn't have owned the 7950 cards in the first place as the 7870 Ghz ed is essentially the under-clocked version.

The problems come down to which drivers are optimised for which game. I hate that, I think it should be optimised as much as possible for both manufacturers and associated vendors.

I, personally, also look at other things when in the market for upgrades such as; TDP (heat given off at full load/idle state), quality of heat dissipation, power consumption, size (will it actually fit on my mobo and how many SATA ports do i lose?), power requirements and quietness.

The only true comparison which is relevant in the debate, is the enthusiasts card; the 290X vs Titan. Of course, this only represents a small percentage of the consumers. Happy to discuss and banter more at the LAN :)
If online bullying has taught us anything. It's that people would sooner hang themselves than lose a bit of weight.

User avatar
Freelance
1337 Krew
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:35 pm
Origin ID: scratched_uk
Battle.net: scratched#2526
steamid: scratched

Re: Gaming gpu's

Postby Freelance » Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:25 pm

The thing that I'm always thinking in the back of my mind is how much amd/nvidia are stringing out their chip designs, rather than a big new design. Nvidia's Maxwell isn't being hyped yet, and as far as I can tell the 290x seems to be a pathfinder to test the waters with new stuff, and we'll have to wait for a full new generation to get a really nice new chip out.

Then there's the usual "is it any good" that a new chip brings, so I guess I can't blame them making the most of existing chips while they can. The other side to that coin is the demands from games, which will come, but I'm not sure is all there yet as the new console generation hasn't arrived quite yet to bring up the 'demand floor'/lowest common denominator.
I adblock smilies.

User avatar
iMess
Your base looks nice, can i have it ?
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:36 pm
Origin ID: imesx
Battle.net: wewlad
steamid: imess
Location: Taunton

Re: Gaming gpu's

Postby iMess » Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:27 pm

Yeh, totally. No 20nm dies yet. That will be the jump.
If online bullying has taught us anything. It's that people would sooner hang themselves than lose a bit of weight.

User avatar
Houlden
Unter Peon
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:30 am
Location: 45-58-32

Re: Gaming gpu's

Postby Houlden » Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:02 pm

I switched from 7950s to 760s purely because of microstutters, I was really sensitive to it and it started to drive me mad. Less power consumption + quieter cards at the expense of a few FPS was fine by me, my graphics setup is still more powerful than a Titan at my resolution :mrgreen: (P.S. I bought my first 7950 on launch day, the 7870 wasn't even out then!)

280X's are a freaking rip off as well. I thought AMD would be awesome but they've managed to release them at a HIGHER price than the 7970s, which is a joke considering they are literally exactly the same card. Shame on them for doing it. I can kinda understand Nvidia (doesn't excuse them entirely though) purely because of the BIOS changes they've made on the 7xx cards, but this whole deal of rebanding is becoming a bit of a joke now. If AMD hadn't done an Nvidia and released the 280Xs at the same price as the 7970s, or fuck, even lower, they'd be onto a winner. Can't wait for 20nm dies, because these current cards are gonna get destroyed by the new console games anyhow.
i5 3570k - Hyper 212 Evo - ASRock Fatal1ty Z77 Performance - 2x SLI MSI 760 - 128GB Samsung 830 - 1TB WD Red

User avatar
iMess
Your base looks nice, can i have it ?
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:36 pm
Origin ID: imesx
Battle.net: wewlad
steamid: imess
Location: Taunton

Re: Gaming gpu's

Postby iMess » Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:40 pm

The new consoles; PS4 & XB1 all have Tahiti XL GPU cores which are 7970/280X, so not really lol.


Also: 7970 Ghz vs R9 280X price wise.. 280X is cheaper.. Dunno where you've seen them more expensive.
If online bullying has taught us anything. It's that people would sooner hang themselves than lose a bit of weight.

User avatar
Houlden
Unter Peon
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:30 am
Location: 45-58-32

Re: Gaming gpu's

Postby Houlden » Sun Oct 13, 2013 10:20 pm

Well, there was a massive jump in power needed when the 360 came out. Hell, the X850 (and it's variations) was one of the only cards that could run even F.E.A.R decently. You already need a monster rig to run Crysis 3 without constantly sacrificing on quality, and BF4 has already made the leap to state 3GB as the recommended amount of VRAM. They might have Taihiti XL cores but that doesn't mean jack really, console games are always rather well fine tuned for the machines, it may be different this time round with both of the big consoles using x86 architectures rather than their own shitty designs, but with Valve pushing PCs in the lounge, they'll do whatever they can to make sure the performance is sweet on consoles for the mean time.

Also, comparing cards from different manufacturers? Dude? Yeah, I can do the same thing; Here's a 770 for considerably cheaper than this, a 680. The same chip inside, different prices. Compare the exact same cards though between 7970s and 280Xs, and you get a picture like this:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-293-AS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=938

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-322-AS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=1842

I mean you could play spot the difference but there's really only one thing different; About £115, for the same card. That's insane.

*EDIT* Not trying to paint Nvidia in some glorious light, they're still assholes with their pricing just as much. Just look at the difference between the MSI TF cards between 680 and 770 models. In short, these guys are assholes.
i5 3570k - Hyper 212 Evo - ASRock Fatal1ty Z77 Performance - 2x SLI MSI 760 - 128GB Samsung 830 - 1TB WD Red

User avatar
iMess
Your base looks nice, can i have it ?
Posts: 4638
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 7:36 pm
Origin ID: imesx
Battle.net: wewlad
steamid: imess
Location: Taunton

Re: Gaming gpu's

Postby iMess » Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:16 pm

Yup, which is why Asus are rich lol. People think that the extra £115 will make a difference. Co-incidentally, didn't the 780 replace the 680? This is all too confusing.

And of course the consoles will utilise the games better as the optimisation is completely different. That's like comparing a turkey to a chicken.

However, Mantle and the cross-platform play idea could change the turkey into a turken.
If online bullying has taught us anything. It's that people would sooner hang themselves than lose a bit of weight.


Return to “Tech Advice”