Jump to content
Mr.Twinkie

$300 to spend? How long do I wait?

Recommended Posts

Supposed new cards are coming in two months so price could drop or might have more options... Target either 280x or gtx 770 for cheapest price... gtx 770 is probably 5% faster but will probably not notice this when gaming. The 280x does have more vram too so this might be the better choice and probably a bit cheaper but uses more power too. If I had the choice with price out of the picture, the 280x for more vram. Also, the 280x is a rebadge of the hd 7970 with slightly slower clocks on the core but usually higher memory clocks and is basically the same thing and will probably be even cheaper.

 

Performance:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9...u_II_OC/24.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the R9 285 comes out the 280X should drop into your budget range. Won't be long before 285 comes out, maybe a couple weeks. Sept arrival date.

 

GTX770 I'm not sure will price drop any time soon (though it might respond to 280X drop). Next nVidia card to come out will be GTX 880 ish, don't think the 770 will move price wise voluntarily for time being.

 

280X will be your best bet if you can wait. If not, your choice is R9 280 or GTX 760 for $300 or less. GTX 760 would be my pick, but they're just about even on performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off-topic: I'm looking forward to seeing what the R9 285 brings. Might be the card for me

Edited by nobody813

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the extra VRAM say 3gb to 4gb actually efficient and usuable in the graphics card?

 

Many people in the intervebs have outcries that there's no software atm that's advanced enough to use more than 2gb of VRAM and by the time it does, the graphics card would be much more powerful than it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an element of that yes. 2GB is the sweet spot atm for games and with the cards you're looking at more than 2GB likely wont ever be required.

 

R9 290 series and up or GTX 780 and up are the 3GB zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an element of that yes. 2GB is the sweet spot atm for games and with the cards you're looking at more than 2GB likely wont ever be required.

 

R9 290 series and up or GTX 780 and up are the 3GB zone.

I don't know, consoles have quite a lot of VRAM, so games will start to optimise for memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7950\280 3g $250 are decent value and oc well

280x start at $319

secondhand 290 4g ~$300 may be a good option

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know, consoles have quite a lot of VRAM, so games will start to optimise for memory.

 

Yes and no. I'm not entirely up on the consoles, cause I dont care for them, but quick search shows:

PS4 has 8GB of GDDR5 unified system memory that needs to serve both the OS as well as game system memory and video memory.

The XBone has, 8GB DDR3 system memory, 5GB of which is reserved for games.

 

Besides, those are aimed at 1080p 30fps(?), with middling anti aliasing I suspect compared to top end PC capabilities. It's not going to push much on using more than 2GB of the system memory really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres games that already use over 2gb of vram if its available at 1080... Like bf4, sleeping dogs... If its already being used, more games will use it too. If I told you at stock both were within 5% but one has an extra 1gb of vram, Id go with the extra vram. If you search your favorite games and add vram usage at the end, might be surprised.

Edited by gamble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the VRAM being used just for textures, or it also gets used for filtering (AA etc)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the VRAM being used just for textures, or it also gets used for filtering (AA etc)?

Both.

Resolution affects it alot as does many AA types. The higher the resolution to render (and number of monitors) = bigger texture footprint.

 

SSAA iirc essentially renders the game at 4x the resolution then shrinks it down to fit your monitor, is very VRAM and GPU intensive (cause everything is 4x), not often seen or used as a result, but may end up looking the best.

MSAA does add but not nearly as bad at Super sampling maybe a couple hundred MB per sample rate.

FXAA (which I suspect consoles would rely more on as less overheads) I don't think does, or nearly as much as it's a quick shader program that just works on the final image output.

 

 

On this BF4 bench: THIS IMAGE (sorry forums wont let me embed it) shows in BF4 uses <1.6GB for a higher than 1080p rez at Ultra detail.

 

 

From Gambles Crysis3 link, this is a good image. MSAA 4x sits in 2GB nicely.

 

 

FXAA is the best for VRAM, hundreds of MB in savings to be had, if a title pushes VRAM limits just use that if the option is there. Most AAA titles that'll push over 2GB should have FXAA as an option anyway.

 

I'm not saying 2GB is all the OP will ever need, but at that $300 price bracket you can get away with it atm, especially if just powering a single 1080p monitor.

If you can get a card with more on it, sure go for it, but there kind of is a balancing act between GPU grunt and VRAM, along with resolution, desired detail settings, FPS and monitor count. Each affects the others.

A GTX 730 with 4GB VRAM doesn't make it better than a GTX 770 with 2GB... it just all depends on the situation and desired outcome.

Edited by mark84
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its strange that is what its showing for bf4. I played last night and was at over 2045mb used consistently... That is at 1080p with everything maxed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was quite surprised to see that even 1440p was basically below 2GB, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R9 285 is releasing tomorrow with 2gb... Performance will be interesting since it's priced at 250US and we might have some benchmarks really soon. Hope it's a good performer to help prices on current cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're not planning to Crossfire/SLI, then AMD pretty much has the game won.

 

If you are, then Nvidia has the game won.

 

Why don't you just get a sweet, sweet R9 290x?

 

You know you wanna.

 

;-)

Edited by Captain Awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R9 285 is releasing tomorrow with 2gb... Performance will be interesting since it's priced at 250US and we might have some benchmarks really soon. Hope it's a good performer to help prices on current cards.

GTX 770 has now been reduced in reply so its costs reflects its performance better. From US$325 now down to US$275.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New cards for nvidia are coming this month too, so there should be some shifts in price within the next few months from both camps. Plus holiday season is only 3 months away...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

prices have already dropped to the point they are now competitive with amd

 

770 $339

780 $479

780ti ti $669

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R9 290 series is/will/has be dropping too.

295X2 also stripped $500 off.

 

All in preparation for GTX 980 and 970 launch this Friday. 960 next month

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×