Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago#46,085
im looking to "invest" in something kinda top of the line, any suggestions on what to get? im also fine with waiting a month or two if something better comes out then.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#608,316
I got a gtx 750ti SC for like a hundred bucks and it works fine. What do you flipping nerds spend like 500 bucks on graphics cards
NERDs
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#608,322
@previous (E)
I'm fine with my dual 7770s but OP asked for high-end.
Anonymous E replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#608,323
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I'm just wondering what the point of spending that much on a gpu is
Like can it do tricks
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#608,330
@previous (E)
yeah, tricks like running higher resolutions at higher framerates. and it might be worth OP to check out amd, they are performing in dx12 better than nvidea. you can get a cheaper card for equal performance. right now. supposedly nvidea is working on better dx12 handling, but it doesn't do async compute stuff. most games don't use it anyway, so a 970 is safe now but might not be as future proof.
i have a 980 and it's wonderful. i can push most everything at 60fps, but not all games in 4k are playable. to do proper 4k or push VR stuff really well i need further upgrades.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#608,331
@previous (squeegee)
I guess it makes sense if you're doing VR???
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#608,337
@608,323 (E)
If you have a 4K resolution monitor and still want to be able to play high-end games on max settings and still render at 60fps and have some degree of future proofing so you don't have to worry about upgrading for a while, yes you need a card like that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#608,338
@608,331 (G)
I plan on doing VR once the consumer-grade headsets get through their betas/alphas. Until then I want to be able to run games on 1980x1050 at 60fps with maxed out graphic settings.
@608,330 (squeegee)
Ah, that is worth considering. I do kind of want an nvidia GPU because of CUDA, but I heard about them sucking with dx12 so maybe I should wait a bit longer. Or see if AMD has nice CUDA alternatives by now.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#608,342
@608,331 (G)
or wanting 144hz and be able to utilize it. or run more than one monitor. or run a really high quality monitor. if you're just doing 1080p and 60hz or less then you don't need as good a graphics card.
but if you want to run a higher rez panel or more than one then you do. i mean if performance is a concern.
if you don't mind stuttering or screen tearing then don't worry about it.
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#608,348
@608,338 (A)
nvideo is doing a software update to help with the ascync compute issue, but amd does it with hardware. as i understand it. probably vr will be best (same with 4k) after 1 more gen of gpu. right now to get the rez for vr plus 90+fps is challenging. also i can upscale to 4k and run around 30 fps with a 980. 4k at 60 or better is either going to be a dual card setup or you'll need the titan. single card 4k solutions are very costly and i think might still be next gen anyway.
if you want 4k, wait. if you want VR support, wait. if you want todays games with highest settings between 30 and 60fps at 144hz and a 2k-3k panel a 970 will be adequate. plus you can sli 970s for a nice boost down the road.
but def don't buy hardware in anticipation of vr, the min specs are likely very high. especially once real games start releasing instead of demos and refreshes of 10 year old games.
for some perspective my 980 can't handle 90fps at the rift resolution in a lot of games, like dcs flight sim. it stutters becuase it's technically pushing dual monitors.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#608,349
@previous (squeegee)
The purchase is not in anticipation of VR. My current videocard is nearing the end of its life (overheating) and has trouble running the newest games at a reasonable fps on high quality. I'll probably be sticking with the 1980x1050 resolution, so probably no 4k, right?
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#608,352
@previous (A)
nvidea does upscale, so you can get 4k res on 1080 panels, and you can turn off AA and get a performance boost. but on a 970 you'd maybe be looking at 20-30 fps in most cases.
4k is still pretty far off for even most enthusiasts. you could probably check into the sub-970's as well, the 950 i think just got a great review.
but at 1080p a 970 will float your boat just fine and you'll get 60fps on medium/high textures. maybe not on ultra.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#608,353
@previous (squeegee)
tbh i am not even entirely sure what 4k means. it's about resolution right? so why would upscaling be a remotely good idea
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 39 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#608,374
@previous (A)
4k is just 1080p x 4 basically. pixels on screen is all, and so running at 4k needs like 4x more power than something running just 1080p well.
downscaling (i mean, not upscaling) gives you 4k textures displayed on a 1080p (or whatever) monitor. it actually looks a lot better, tbh, but performance tanks.
supposedly at 4k rez you don't get jaggies and Anti aliasing isn't needed anymore. everything just looks super crisp and perfect. but not AS perfect as proper 4k on a 4k panel.
downscaling is just a "fill the gap until 4k panels are cheap" kinda thing. not anything to make or break a build over, tbh. good way to test your build and see what performance you'd get on a 4k panel though. even at 30fps and downscaled it looks great. but, i like high fps myself.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#608,375
A Much more better high end GPU can be used to run math type programs much more better then the internal CPU.
In other words it has uses beyond graphics display outputer
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 21 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#608,609
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#608,649
@608,639 (J)
60fps is what you need on a 60hz monitor to eliminate screen tearing. lots of folks game on a 60hz locked to 30 and you get stuttering. and if you go higher than that you get tearing. so if you have a 60hz panel it's a good idea to at least get solid 60fp.
and if you have a better monitor at 144hz then you want to push better than 150fps so you can keep vsync equal to the refresh rate.
something like that. it's all about smoothness and picture quality.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#608,687
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 weeks later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,351
@608,330 (squeegee)
getting the new card this week, is your suggestion still the 980? and if so, which?
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,388
@previous (A)
i do like my 980 quite a bit. i'm an EVGA fan, but i've always heard great things about MSI. right now the 980 is going for about 500ish. pretty sure i paid 550 for mine. so there's been a bit of a price drop on them. the newer 6gb gtx980ti is a motherfucking beast, but it's closer to $670. If i was buying a card today, i would likely be buying an MSI gtx980ti (but only msi because i would match the white card to a white case, so it's beside the point.)
alternatives at that price point, the AMD R9 390x. it's just about the same price, if not flat out less than the 980. i'm seeing one for $339. the upside is that it might give very slightly better performance in some games, but it also might be more optimized for DX12. it could potentially be a little more future proof. But, that comes at a price. it's going to run a lot hotter and consume more power than a 980, so if you've got a pretty ventilated case and don't mind the extra cost of running it, then the 390X would probably be the AMD card i would get if i was buying one today. there is of course the Fury X cards, but i don't know much about those beyond their 600+ dollar price tag.
I can vouch for both the EVGA gtx980 and the EVGA gtx970. My brother runs a 970 and he says it's fantastic. he's running all his games on high or ultra and he's on a 1080p monitor getting a very nice frame rate. it's an excellent card. the 980 has handled everything i've thrown at it. ultra settings, 1440p, solid 60fps most of the time. yeah, games like GTA 5 i have to run with slightly less than ultra settings, especially at 1440p.
so, 980 is a solid choice over the AMD counterparts in my opinion except for the price difference. but the 390x is much better then the 970. So if you decide to go AMD let me know how that card works out for you. supposedly it's about equivalent to a 980 but just less money. i can't speak to AMD quality or give any testimonials outside of what i've heard, but i've heard it's an awesome card. so if you want the performance of a 980 but don't like the price right now, i'd really give a good look at the 390x. i mean it's 8 fucking gb, it's nuts.
oh yeah, but, you can't over clock it at all. the 980 has a LOT of headroom to overclock. So if you're wanting to play with that kind of stuff then pretty sure the 980 would be your card. but if you don't want to overclock it and you don't mind the energy use and think your case will be good to vent the heat then yeah, the 390x looks great. especially at that price, it's a song.
so, probably my choice would be:
980ti - way over the top
gtx980 - EVGA or MSI probably. i like those.
390x - maybe MSI, maybe sapphire. there are overclocked versions up to $420.
gtx970 - don't even think i would consider, tbh
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
squeegee double-posted this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,391
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,400
@613,388 (squeegee) @previous (squeegee)
My current card runs at like 90C occasionally, I'm pretty sure it's broken. Anyway that probably means my case can handle the heat, so I guess I should look into that R9 390x as well.
i've never played with overclocking before, and have no real interest in it.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 11 years ago, 41 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,441
@613,391 (squeegee)
Did a bit more searching, and it seems the R9 390x isn't a whole lot better than the R9 390, and about $100 more expensive. VR also seems to be becoming a thing next year, so I imagine I'll have to upgrade again then. So now I'm leaning towards the R9 390. Or still maybe just the EVGA980. Ugh, this is annoying.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 13 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,622
@previous (A)
i'm not sure the 980 will be enough for VR, there's no specs on what'll be needed for stuff like the CV1 oculus and all. i'm thinking i'll be needing to either sell my 980 and get something else or maybe SLI will be okay. they're trying to make SLI push one panel per card or something, so that might be best for me since i've already got a 980. i'm hoping things will just be better optimized than the ports i've played. hopefully i'll be dandy.
probably with the r9 390 you'd be able to Crossfire that thing next year for VR rather than upgrade again, and at that price having 2 is a much better value than 2 980s.
idk, that r9 390 looks really good. AMD is really putting out some nice stuff right now at an outstanding price. If i were buying today, yeah, i'd be seriously reconsidering my stance as an nvidea fanboy. i think it's a great deal. it's kind of like a future proofed price, actually. Even if the card doesn't hold up against VR next year you're not 600 bucks in the dump and also needing to drop another 500 just to get decent performance. at 350 in the hole you can either double at half the price up or sell off and THEN drop that 600 on whatever card people are preferring.
that r9 390 is what i would get. i think it's your best deal in today's environment.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,623
@previous (squeegee)
Ahem, I already ordered the EVGA 980 just now since that ensured it'd be delivered tomorrow. I'm also an nvidia fan, and figured since I have excess money right now I might as well. I also intend to run CUDA programs, and since I have no experience with the AMD counterpart, meh. I was also slightly worried about the increased power usage of the r9 390, since that meant I would need to get a new PSU as well and wind up with a higher electricity bill. I already read in some reviews that it gets quite warm when doing regular 2 monitor work, which I do basically all the time so that was a concern as well. We'll see how it goes, but thanks a lot for your insight. I might not have made the best choice, but I'm sure I'll be happy with it.
And I've already set aside 2k EUR for VR once that becomes mainstream. Shit gon be gud.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,628
@previous (A)
awesome, you'll love the 980. it sips watts, and it's cool. i don't regret buying mine, it's worked perfectly. i used to run a gtx 570 and when i upgraded i lowered my at-the-outlet consumption by close to 100 watts. i was pretty impressed i was able to run it on a 500 watt PSU. and yeah, i love nvidea. buying an AMD card would make me kinda sad. lol. nvidea may not be the best value, like per dollar, but nvidea has the better tech. i mean, a 4GB 980 works as well and sometimes better than an 8gb AMD card. so i guess nvidea just does more with less? idk, the efficiency and just everything about it screams higher quality if not fully superior performance. you do pay kind of a premium price for nvidea cards, but it's well worth it imo. I've only had good experiences with nvidea cards.
can't really speak for AMD, i'd feel like i was taking a chance buying one. we'll have to see who comes out as king of VR, nvidea with their super efficient architecture, or AMD with their fuckton of memory and ASYNC COMPUTE whatevers. one thing i do know is that nvidea is putting a lot of money into VR development and i'm not sure what AMD is doing other than throwing more Vram at the problem.
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,629
@608,375 (Syntax)
But how would you even call operations on it?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,632
@613,628 (squeegee)
the amount of memory isn't everything. from how i understand it the vram is just determines how much shit you can have loaded in and at what quality. if a bunch of people are using nvidia cards with only 4gb then devs are going to be targeting that instead of going up and above it unless they specifically target amd. i can see the additional vram being useful when you excessively mod games to add in extra crap, but I don't really do that.
what really matters, as far as i can tell, as long as you have at least 4GB of vram, is the speed the memory can be accessed at and the amount of compute cores and the speed of them. i'm under the impression that nvidia is much better at the latter. anyway, i am currently using a GTX470 and it still runs most games, so in that sense i am quite pleased with nvidia. i shall see how things turn out, and am looking forward to high quality the witcher 3 and fallout 4 at least.
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,637
@previous (A)
i haven't played witcher, but fallout 4 is going to be beautiful
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 31 seconds later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,638
@previous (squeegee)
pls play witcher. it is fucking amazing. you dont need to have played the earlier games to enjoy it, but they too are good. im on my 2nd playthrough of witcher 3
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,640
@previous (A)
alright, i'll check it out. i've only heard good things.
Meowth joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,646
> Anonymous A posted 2 weeks ago
> Anonymous A (OP), 55 minutes ago > Ahem, I already ordered the EVGA 980 just now since that ensured it'd be delivered tomorrow.
What in the fuck made it take two damn weeks for you to order this shit??
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,670
Pentium II/Celeron equivalent.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,676
@613,646 (Meowth)
I had to wait for delivery to work out anyway. Figured I'd start my research in time, forget about it for a week and then be like oh shit.
Meowth replied with this 11 years ago, 10 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#613,894