Looking at upgrading my Graphics Card (Currently running an AMD R7 260X 1Gb. Seems to be a sideways step from my GTX 285 1Gb).
What card does /g/ recommend? I see a lot of talk about the GTX970, but 3.5Gb doesn't seem right to me.
Most people get a r9 290/290x. You should do fine with that since it has a similar performance to a gtx 970.
>>52212488
When looking at 4k gaming, I realise that that's way ahead, so currently gaming at 1080p, but would a 290 do it? Would getting more memory help for 4k or would the gpu itself be not strong enough to really do 4k justice?
>>52212488
Or a r9 390
>>52212524
The 290 should be enough to push some games to 60-80 fps at 1080p. If you want 4k wou might need to invest a little more in something like a 980ti or a r9 Fury X.
>>52212524
Do you even have a 4k monitor? If not then it's overkill to get a high-end gpu
Or a r7 360/370
>>52212551
A highly clocked 290/x can drive a good chunk of modern games (but not all) at high settings at 4k in the 30-50fps range.
Pic for example is ultra, turn down a few settings and 40fps is within reach with an overclock.
>>52212593
Not at the moment, but down the line I am going to be wanting to go 4k. I'd be happy to have a 4k screen for desktop stuff (huge amount of real estate), but then game on it at 1080p, so long as it didn't look too bad
>>52212617
1080p is exactly 1/4 of 4k, so it should look decent as its divisible from native resolution.
>>52212603
What about disabling anti-aliasing. Is it possible to notice a difference at 4?
titan z
>>52212654
Disabling AA helps if you love your msaa (lel anyone who uses ssaa at 4k) but given a lot of post-process AA (such as fxaa) are basically computationally "free" there isn't much in it.
Some games just can't be run off a single gpu at 4k unless you head towards medium or low settings, which somewhat defeats the point.
>>52212727
Not even the most die hard Nvidia fanboys can defend that.
>>52212742
What's so bad about Titan Z anon?
>>52212757
It cost more than a 295x2, is considerably slower and barely held stock clocks due to the cooler being woefully incapable of handling two full titan black cores. There is a reason why the equally hot hawaii chips are watercooled on the 295x2.
Jumping on this thread. Currently have a GTX 770, and looking to upgrade. Should I go for the GTX 980 Ti or is GTX 970 good enough? The 980 is a whole lot more expensive, so I'm not sure if it's worth all the extra money in comparison to the 970.
And is the 970 better enough than the 770 that it's worth it in the first place?
>>52214172
Your 770 is fine for now, wait for Pascal and HBM2.
>>52214395
Thanks for the input. I just would like an easy way to get better framerates, but maybe it's just because some PC ports of console games suck by design.
>Pascal
Will that require a new mobo, though?
>>52214583
Negative.
Pascal will reportedly use the same x16 3.0 that current cards use.
>>52214647
Of course it will use pcie 3.0 - NVlink is not for consumers.
>>52212458
>Pile of brass tacks:
970 is a respectable card. Above all, it's more stable and cooler than the AMD equivalents, assuming you aren't getting a shit-tier brand.
For the money, an r9 390 is a much better buy in terms of raw performance, but it requires more power, and a better cooling setup to prevent fucking house fires.
If you can get one, an r9 290 is a good way to go, because they're cheap right now. It's only a small downgrade from a r9 390, but to be fair -- they're even less efficient and stay hotter.
r9 390
>>52214647
What if you only have PCI-E 2?
Also, what happened to the whole GTX 970 3.5Gb thing?
>>52212458
if you are into graphics development forget about AMD. NSight and Cuda will bring you glory in no time
>>52214830
>NSight
What is this?
I'm a programmer, but never done any GPGPU stuffs, but I do like the work that is going on with the likes of Blender cycles and using the GPU for stuff. The fact that Nvidia is so far ahead (even though it's because of proprietry stuff) is a big factor for me.
What's the GTX 960 like?
>>52214798
pcie is backwards compatible. If you have a 3.0 slot or 3.0 card, it will work just fine on 2.0 card/slot respectively. It's just a bit slower; frankly -- you won't actually notice a difference
>>52214937
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nsight.html
>>52214937
The 960 is competitive with the r9 380. They trade off, so it's down to which one you can get cheaper.
In all, it's a solid card with low TDP and relatively low heat.
>>52215049
I think that's my big thing, is that i don't want to spend too much, so a 980 etc is just way overboard.
>>52212823
Titan Z is based off Kepler. No reason to go out and buy one unless you're trying to get the most powerful mITX build, and you really love NVIDIA.
Or if you do FP64 computation but that's a different story.
>>52215098
>FP64 computation but that's a different story.
Thats the only reason to ever touch a titan z, but then again it costed more than two titan blacks (by some margin) so even then you could actually get two titan blacks as well as best part of a waterloop and enjoy not only higher clocks (titan z runs at what, 700mhz?) as well as better temps.
>>52215062
Dont get any AMD garbage especially if you have dual monitors.
My 7970 idled at 500 MHz.... on the desktop with dual monitors and literally used 8-10 times the power of my 950 at idle. fucking crazy.
Come to find out that my new FTW 950 is nearly as good as the 7970(280x).... wtf amd hahaha
>>52215049
>960
>close to 380
No sir, no.
>>52215176
>FTW 950 is nearly as good as the 7970(280x)....
Not in this reality it isn't.
If you want nvidia, the 970 is still the best choice. Look at the benchmarks and see if they're worth the price.
>>52215227
3.5Gb
>>52214172
What display do you have? Are you happy with 40-50 fps at 1080p in high ultra?
How much better than the regular 380 is the 380X?
How much worse is the 960?
>>52215207
>Not in this reality it isn't.
Yes, it is.
I had a stock reference 7970 at 950 MHZ. here is its run:
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6854051
An my 950, actually its a SSC EVGA, I am confident I could overclock it to close the gap.
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6884728
Today is the day you learned that a 7970 is only a little more than 10% more powerful than a GTX 950.
>>52215317
Actually that 7970 was at 1020 mhz. lol...
>>52215315
>380
960 is def better, especially SSC and FTW cards.
380 is really at its core a 7950 with lipstick on it.
>>52215317
>950 graphics score 6957
>7970 graphics score 7906
I see.
Also:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_950_Xtreme_Gaming/6.html (start here)
>>52215369
>380 is really at its core a 7950 with lipstick on it.
You are a dipshit. The 380 is an upclocked 285 which is a totally different chip to the aging tahiti.
I swear /g/ gets stupider by the day.
>>52215128
Nowadays it's $1500 brand new from EVGA, so it's competitive.
>>52215422
>You are a dipshit. The 380 is an upclocked 285 which is a totally different chip to the aging tahiti.
Are you literally autistic? IT IS a 7950, same GCN 1.x core. Stupid kike. They only added marginal features to it.
They can call the "new" chip whatever they want, truth is, its the same chip at its CORE. Same GCN arch. Fucking dunce.
>still no 960ti
I guess nvidia doesn't want my money after all
>>52214172
>always lurk these threads desperately scanning to see if my card is outdated or not yet
I'm still planning on upgrading soon though, I need better cooling.
>>52215422
>>950 graphics score 6957
>>7970 graphics score 7906
>I see.
I guess you didnt read the part where I said "there only a little over a 10% difference".
That said you could easily overclocked the 950 to be better.
Considering both cards TDP well.... its like comparing an old 210 HP V8 to a modern 190 hp turbo i4. the i4 will be far, far more efficient.
>>52215430
Barely. Unless you seriously need that FP64 its a bad card to buy.
>>52215480
>Same GCN arch. Fucking dunce.
No, its not.
GCN 1.2 has a different layout for its ACE for example compared to 1.1 and 1.2 along with having (for example) the trueaudio module on die along with a bunch of other changes that make AMD identify as it as a different chip.
By your logic a 480 and 980ti are basically the same beyond one having a shitload more cores (and front end) than theo ther.
>>52215518
So you are happy your midrange card is still behind a four year old flagship? Yay?
>>52215267
I'm actually gaming mainly on my TV, which is connected as my secondary monitor. It's fine for most games, but for some I do wish for a slightly better framerate. I'm just not sure if going from 770 to, say, 970 will be worth it, instead of waiting for the next new big thing this year.
>>52215522
>that make AMD identify as it as a different chip.
Just like they call 8 modules 8 cores.
AMD is joke and they have been doing cancerous shit like this for years.
Point is, a 7950 is far more similar to a 380 than a 480 is to a 980ti.
a 380 is what? 15% more powerful than a stock reference 7950?
Christ, that was over 3 years ago..... a 15% increase? really? Tell me its not a rebrand.....
>>52215546
Im happy that all my games run perfectly and now I dont have some fuckhuge card spewing out loads of heat, not even being able to clock-down at idle.
Computer is so much quieter too, since the fans on my card turn off completely.
So yeah, im happy.
>>52215605
>AMD is joke and they have been doing cancerous shit like this for years.
And Nvidia hasn't, right?
>>52215605
>Just like they call 8 modules 8 cores.
There is no defintion of what makes u pa core - neither Intel or AMD have codified it so AMD's claim is valid especially given the cpu can execute considerably more than 8 threads at once.
>Christ, that was over 3 years ago..... a 15% increase? really? Tell me its not a rebrand.....
Its not a rebrand, the poor performance increase is a different issue. The core count is different between a 7950 and 380 (380 has less), the bus width is different, the ram amount is different. Y'know, all things that require massive retooling.
Unless AMD puts out some SERIOUSLY compelling cards they will become a joke.
Its crazy that they are calling cards made in 2012 "new"...
You dont see nvidia selling rebranded 680's from 2012, simple truth.
>>52215654
Not to the point of AMD's foolishness, no they have not.
Every company rebrands but AMD has been pushing GCN for nearly 4 years now.
AMDs low end segment is continually just rebraded 7870's and 7850's.
AMD needs to implement their new arch along the entire lineup line Nvidia has done....
>>52215678
That is because the 680 performs like shit these days - even its rebranded version (770) gets beaten by AMD's "2012 rebrand".
Ah well, another thread ruined by ignorance from Nvidiots.
Woah man I just wanted to know if I should get a 380 or a 960, sorry for killing the thread
>>52215671
>The core count is different between a 7950 and 380 (380 has less)
Uh no, its not.
Thats why its entirely depressing.....
7950 has 1792 cores
380 has 1792 cores.
If you dont believe me look it up.
This is why we say REBRAND. both built on GCN 1.x.
>>52215747
960 dude, its the right choice. im not kidding when I say it just works better, as memey as that may be.
>>52215763
>both built on GCN 1.x.
So according to you every GCN card is a rebrand of another one, since they are all GCN?
So what is the 290x a rebrand of?
>>52215792
Why are you trying to move the goal post?
Why should I even converse with a guy who cant even get basic facts right?
>>52215176
You're an idiot.
>>52215911
>You're an idiot.
Got anything to back that up?
Ive thoroughly rebuked everyone else.
>>52215889
I'm not trying to move the goalposts, I just don't feel the need to discuss with someone who cannot grasp the revisions of GCN and why they are quite considerably different.
>>52215941
You also forgot that a 280x can be overclocked - often into the 1100mhz range.
Why are Nvidia fanboys so obnoxious and retarded?
I own both Nvidia and AMd and have no big preference for one brand or the other, but everytime I see one of these AMd vs Nvidia threads, the Nvidiots act way more retarded
>>52215941
I think you're just a troll. There's no way you truly believe that a 950 is close to a 7970 in performance
>>52215781
I'm running a gtx 960. Don't expect to use antialiasing ever, but otherwise runs things nicely, and uses almost no power (more important for your power supply selection, it only saves you about $10 per year if you use heavily. I ran wicher 3 on the High preset with hairworks and AA turned off, it ran about 45ps. Can lower unimportant stuff to improve fps. Fallout 4 runs 60 fps with godrays turned to low and shadow distance to medium. If what I'm describing sounds unpleasant (graphics whore), don't buy a 960. the 380 seems to do somewhat better in benchmarks. Idk how that equates to real life performance.
>>52216004
>Don't expect to use antialiasing ever
Why?
>>52215991
So im to assume you are blind then?
Look at the fucking 3dmark runs I posted.
a 7970 at 1020 MHz is only what 12% more powerful than a 950? The 950 could be overclocked to be equal.
Some of you guys just cant handle the truth.
>>52216040
>The 950 could be overclocked to be equal.
And then you could overclock the 7970 to be superior again.
You're saying a Ford Focus is as powerful as a Ferrari because you can put a better engine in it
>>52216068
>You're saying a Ford Focus is as powerful as a Ferrari because you can put a better engine in it
No.... there was only a 10-12% difference to begin with.
Im saying that the GTX 950 is akin to an efficient modern car wit ha turbo i4.
It, being nearly as fast as the V8 mustangs of the 80's and 90's while also being far more efficient.
Is it really even fair to compare a 950 to a 7970? not realyl because of how pig fat and power hungry the 7970 is.
Just shows how far Nvidia has come VS AMD.
>>52216135
>>52216068
Ladies, get some stats to back both of your claims up
>>52216162
Uh.... I already posted the fucking 3dmark runs. How many more times do I have to say this?
>>52216040
Dude I have no allegiance to amd or anything. I will totally buy whatever I think is the best deal for me. Just speaking anecdotally, I have a 280x (basically 7970). My buddy has a 960. I get consistently better performance in games. His card is for sure better than your 950 so why should I believe a 950 would be better than a card similar to mine?
The 380 is a good value card, either get that or wait until summer when Pascal releases
>>52216193
I already posted the results, I never said it was BETTER but ALMOST as good while having a TDP of ONLY 90 watts vs TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY!
Fuck! I could run two in SLI and still come in far under a pig fat 7970.
Lets not forget that Nvidia pays off some game devs to optimize for their card so..... witcher 3....
>>52216031
It's not strong enough. Games will look better with decent textures and effects with no AA vs Lower quality textures and with AA. Unless you're willing to get like 40 fps just to use AA and have high textures in a not-that-demanding game. I don't even use AA in World of Warcraft and end up at about 65 fps. AA brings me to about 55 so I say fuck it, I want to hit dat refresh rate.
>>52216229
I don't think they PAY devs to optimize for amd, that's too blatant. It's probably just that they help they ask for help with coding and shit, and the nvidia guys just program to what they know, which is nvidia hardware/ software.
>>52212458
290/390(x)
>>52216508
When you come from a toaster like I do, 40 fps feels like heaven.
Go look at your steam library history and tell me how often you buy $60 games day one then decide if you need a $300 card in the first place.If your the guy who waits for sales alot and doesnt buy day one ever then it would be a waste.
