Yet another 'what GPU should I buy?' thread

[Crow47]

Alright, I wanted to get everyone's thoughts as to what GPU I should purchase. I'm going to be buying in the next 7-10 days. Right now I'm looking at several options, and I'm torn between the r9 290/290x, and the GTX 770/780. Bang for the buck is more important to me, as well as the overall amount of texture memory. The texture memory only being 3GB on many of the 780's is why I'm considering the r9 290/290x more heavily. As much as I love TXAA and PhysX seeing the way Watch Dogs is running on a 2GB card has me thinking I need to prioritize the amount of VRAM. My price range is around $500 but I'm flexible. It's more about the overall value for me. What do you think?

[IVIYTH0S]

If you're considering a 770, why not through the 280x (7970) into the running too?

 

The 290 or 290X would be my pick though, the 290 seems to be better than the 780 in most games, with the X being more so.

[WarWeeny]

If you want to have the best bang for buck, you an only go one way and that is the 290X.

It is in the same league as the gtx 780 (ti?) and has a really good performance overall.

 

Personally, i am a bit biased towards Nvidia cards as the support for games and the broad selection of options to tweak your games has won me over.

For example, not every game supports the AA options of the control center, but with Nvidia inspector, they actually do (AMD doesn't have this, thus severely limiting your options, not even radeon pro can do this as far as i am aware of).

Final fantasy 14 for example has terrible AA options and ignores the control center AA options, but with inspector i can use 4x multisampling and 4x sparegrid super sampling to eliminate any jaggies that are in the game (even running it on higher resolution doesn't negate the terrible AA the game has).

 

Personally, i would get the gtx 780 (ti?) because i am biased towards Nvidia.

[cchalogamer]

...seeing the way Watch Dogs is running on a 2GB card has me thinking I need to prioritize the amount of VRAM. 

Then seeing Watch Dogs on a $550 R9 290X vs a $350 GTX 770 would make you cry if you do go AMD.

 

If you're running 1440p or less then 3GB is still enough for every other game, but who knows about the future, you very well may not have the performance in the 290/780 to really NEED over 3GB later on in their life cycle.

 

I bought a 290X after being fed up with the AMD camp's drivers from hell back when I had my 6950 and going nvidia only for my personal builds for a while (My GTX 670 replaced it then I got a 770 and later happened to pick up another one limited cost to me).  I'm happy with the 290X, but I'm not really "wowed" by it like I had hoped.  Drivers are still a bit more flaky than nvidia. Nvidia seems to have dropped the ball a bit here recently thoughbut AMD is no where near as bad as when I ditched them before.  If you go 290/X be sure to get one of the good custom coolers (Not all of them cool very well as not all were designed with the 290 die shape and size in mind I'm looking at you ASUS) so you don't end up with a hair dryer worse than those GTX 670s on full fan speed (my 670 is one of the PNY XLR8s like you had) I will say I don't regret going for my Powercolor 290X as far as what card I choose, it run cool and quiet for the heat output it's capable of even if I do miss shadowplay and the other nvidia only toys

 

I guess long story short the 290/Xs are going to give the better bang for the buck in fps, but you've got to decide how much the nvidia ecosystem is worth to you.  I personally was holding out for a 780/780ti when I bought the 290X but got it for $439.99 off newegg and figured it was a worthy trade off.

[Crow47]

I am looking at the 280x in fact. The only reservation I would have is that I feel like I would need two of them to get decent performance at 1440P as one would cut it about as well as one 670. Is that accurate?

 

My problem with nVidia right now is that after all the talk of the nVidia optimizations, something that should be competent in Watch Dogs like a GTX 670 isn't, only because it lacks texture memory. By that logic I feel like 4GB is enough to futureproof and the main contenders there are the 290/290x. 

[Crow47]

 

...seeing the way Watch Dogs is running on a 2GB card has me thinking I need to prioritize the amount of VRAM. 

Then seeing Watch Dogs on a $550 R9 290X vs a $350 GTX 770 would make you cry if you do go AMD.

 

If you're running 1440p or less then 3GB is still enough for every other game, but who knows about the future, you very well may not have the performance in the 290/780 to really NEED over 3GB later on in their life cycle.

 

 

 

 

You REALLY have me thinking right now. That's a completely valid point, and with DX12 coming next year, I know going into this I won't have it for more than two years.

[WarWeeny]

I am looking at the 280x in fact. The only reservation I would have is that I feel like I would need two of them to get decent performance at 1440P as one would cut it about as well as one 670. Is that accurate?

 

My problem with nVidia right now is that after all the talk of the nVidia optimizations, something that should be competent in Watch Dogs like a GTX 670 isn't, only because it lacks texture memory. By that logic I feel like 4GB is enough to futureproof and the main contenders there are the 290/290x. 

 

Why not the 4gb gtx 770 then?

[cchalogamer]

 

I am looking at the 280x in fact. The only reservation I would have is that I feel like I would need two of them to get decent performance at 1440P as one would cut it about as well as one 670. Is that accurate?

 

My problem with nVidia right now is that after all the talk of the nVidia optimizations, something that should be competent in Watch Dogs like a GTX 670 isn't, only because it lacks texture memory. By that logic I feel like 4GB is enough to futureproof and the main contenders there are the 290/290x. 

 

Why not the 4gb gtx 770 then?

 

My guess is as someone who has a GTX 670 and 770 both (even if they are 2GB models) that he's gonna feel real sad about the performance going from the SLI 670s down to a single 770 even with the extra video ram.  Then again with my SLI luck over the time I was running dual 770s I think I would have been better off with one 4GB card half the time

[IVIYTH0S]

I heard that the 4GB is partially gimped by the slower bus though

[Fight Game]

what about a separate dedicated physics card.  I don't think you should have to go this route , but maybe it's an option? 

[RedFury77]

GTX 780.  

 

I grabbed a brand new Asus 780 for $460.  Super happy with it and running everything at 1440P.  I considered the 4gb 770, but really didn't think the performance was there for 1440p, while the 780 pushes FPS up above 60 and then some.  BF4 ultra/1440 is running ~80-96fps (have it capped at 96) in most maps.  I haven't seen anything to spark my interest in Watchdogs though so no input there.  4gb of vram sounds better but I haven't hit the 3gb limit yet playing anything.  

[Crow47]

GTX 780.  

 

I grabbed a brand new Asus 780 for $460.  Super happy with it and running everything at 1440P.  I considered the 4gb 770, but really didn't think the performance was there for 1440p, while the 780 pushes FPS up above 60 and then some.  BF4 ultra/1440 is running ~80-96fps (have it capped at 96) in most maps.  I haven't seen anything to spark my interest in Watchdogs though so no input there.  4gb of vram sounds better but I haven't hit the 3gb limit yet playing anything.  

 

That's a heck of a deal? Where did you find that?