GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

crimsonstag84 said:If you're running an i5 or something similar, power draw won't be an issue with the R9 290 x on an XFX 550 W. There are new cards coming out in June, so I’d definitely hold off—especially since you already have an R9 280 x (upgrading to an R9 290 x or a GTX 970 would just be throwing money away). And FYI, the GTX 960 is actually weaker than the R9 280 x; it's closer to an R9 280.

i7 4790k (I prefer stronger CPUs), but it doesn't matter. I'm not planning on buying it anyway.

So you're saying it's weaker than the 280X? Huh. I thought there would be something worth getting excited about in the mid-range. 😁
If that's the case, the 960 isn't worth it. It sits right around where the 280X is depending on the model. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being more expensive too.

I wasn't necessarily asking for myself, just talking shop.

Things got interesting when the 970 and gtx 980 dropped, but now it all feels pretty pointless. Nothing worth upgrading for unless you're building a whole new PC.

I've lost interest in the AMD 300 series entirely. You might as well just wait for the next generation.

They just recycle the same old chips for three years and slap different names on them. 😁

So, I've officially decided to pass on the GTX 970 and just wait for the R9 390/390 x to drop. Check out these rumors—it looks like this card might actually be the first one to feature HBM (High Bandwidth Memory). Even if they don't fully tap into all that speed and potential during this generation, you're definitely going to see the jump in performance. http://videocardz.com/54858/amd-rade...d-380x-grenada

If you guys could somehow squeeze more than 3.5GB of VRAM out of this at 1080p, I’d basically be running for office or something. 🙄

Gary Anderson38 said:Honestly, I'm not even looking at AMD's 300 series anymore. Next gen? Yeah, right.

They just recycle the same old chips for three years and slap new names on them. 😁

It looks like only the R9 285, R9 290, and R9 290 x will be recycled—basically just bumped clock speeds and slightly tweaked power draw. We might see two enthusiast models (the R9 390 and R9 390 x, which preliminary numbers suggest offer a 40-60% jump over the R9 290 x), along with some polished GCN 1.3 versions of the R7 260X, R9 270/270X, and R9 280/280X.

crimsonstag84 said:It looks like the R9 285, R9 290, and R9 290 x are essentially getting a refresh—think higher clock speeds paired with slightly more efficient power consumption. Meanwhile, we have two enthusiast-tier models on the horizon (the R9 390 and R9 390 x), which preliminary data suggests will offer a massive 40-60% performance jump over the R9 290 x. We’re looking at the refined GCN 1.3 versions of the R7 260X, R9 270/270X, and the R9 280/280X series.

It’s still too early to call this one, but all signs point toward Trinidad being the next big chip architecture. If the rumors hold up, it looks like we're finally moving past the era of Pitcairn and Tahiti.

AMD is reportedly working on some serious next-gen hardware, specifically focusing on a brand-new chip that could shake things up in the market. It looks like they aren't just sitting idle; they're actively pushing the envelope to stay competitive. If the rumors hold water, this move could be a massive leap forward for their architecture. It’s a bold play, much like when a tech giant pivots its entire strategy to reclaim the throne. We'll have to see if this new silicon delivers the performance punch everyone is expecting.
Word on the street is that AMD might be cooking up something interesting regarding their upcoming hardware architecture, specifically involving a 256-bit memory bus. If these rumors hold water, it could represent a significant shift in how they balance bandwidth and efficiency in their next generation of GPUs. Think of it like upgrading a highway from four lanes to six; you aren't just adding more space, you're fundamentally changing the flow of traffic to prevent bottlenecks during peak hours. While we're still waiting for official confirmation from the folks over at AMD, this move suggests they are looking to fine-tune the sweet spot between cost-effectiveness and high-end performance. It’ll be fascinating to see if this helps them close the gap in the enthusiast market.

So, it looks like only the latest generation chips are getting a rebranding for the new series.

The R9 380/X is essentially just an R9 290/X in a different outfit.
It’s essentially an R9 285 in a different outfit.

Larry Ortiz5 said:If you manage to pull more than 3.5GB of VRAM at Full HD resolution, I’ll run straight onto the field and score a touchdown. 🙄

i

😬

Unfortunately, because developers are focusing so heavily on optimizing games for consoles, we're going to see more and more titles hitting the PC market in this exact same state.

That’s basically what I was thinking with the polished 😬 ...though maybe that's the wrong way to put it, since they're moving from GCN 1.2 to GCN 1.3 😉

Timothy Kim60 said:

and

😬

Unfortunately, because games are being optimized specifically for consoles, we're going to see more and more titles landing on PC in this exact state.

That’s all fair, but Dying Light should be getting a patch soon to fix things—the way it's eating up resources right now is honestly just a disaster.

And when I claimed Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor could pull 3.5GB of VRAM, I was clearly just being an idiot and spreading misinformation because apparently some people said 😁 let me know when you're running tomorrow, I'm free 😛

I mean, come on—I’ve got every single setting cranked up to the absolute max, but let’s be real, this game is just incredibly demanding. Besides, PC World published an article just two days ago about running on 3.5GB of VRAM, claiming they didn't run into any issues at that resolution. Honestly, I haven't even hit a game yet that actually stutters on my rig.

Larry Ortiz5 said:Well, yeah, you've got everything cranked to the absolute max because the game is just a beast. Besides, PCWorld published an article two days ago about having 3.5GB of VRAM and said they didn't run into any issues at that resolution. Honestly, I haven't hit a game yet that actually makes my rig stutter.

I mean, you have to have everything on max settings; nobody expects a card like this to require any kind of compromise. It’s not stuttering because there's still plenty of raw power under the hood regardless of the VRAM, but let's be real—we're basically screwed within six months to a year.😬
I'm just worried about what happens if The Witcher drops and it's poorly optimized...

Larry Ortiz5 said:Well, if you crank everything up to the absolute max, then yeah, the game is just incredibly demanding. Besides, PC Gamer published an article a couple of days ago about having 3.5GB of VRAM and said they didn't run into any issues at that resolution. Honestly, I haven't even encountered a game that stutters on my end yet.

Have you actually looked at which games they’re testing? Reviewers consistently refuse to, don't know how to, or simply don't dare to test things properly. Take this other Dying Light video, for example—around the 3-minute mark, the gtx 980 pushes past 4000MB...

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor with the texture pack enabled at 1080p breaks the 3700MB barrier on a gtx 970. That obviously doesn't mean performance isn't still great—in this specific clip, it is (even if jay2cents hit a few drops)—but I'm just pointing out that modern games CAN exceed 3.5GB at 1080p without even needing DSR technology.

We might see games popping up soon that pull way more than 4GB (assuming you've got every setting maxed out). The real issue is how these multi-platform titles are optimized for consoles, given they have access to fast, unified 8GB DDR5 memory shared between the GPU and CPU. In my opinion, developers aren't even optimizing correctly for consoles because they're squeezed by tight deadlines to chase the money, so imagine how little they care about the PC port (if you played Dying Light, you'd see what I mean, since I've been reading it's a total disaster).

Not everything is about VRAM either http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...gb,3977-3.html

Of course not. Until about a year ago, VRAM wasn't even a factor. But once those resource-heavy titles start dropping—and honestly, we’re already seeing it in the games mentioned—you'll see the gap between an 8GB R9 290X and a beefier GTX 980 with only 4GB.

Just take a look at how they stack up right now on 1440p and 4K resolutions.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...rmance-Testing

The 8GB model might actually pull even further ahead. Though, if you check that Tom's Hardware test, the 6GB version of the R9 290X (which was likely an 8GB mistake in their report) is only marginally faster than the GTX 980 in Shadow of Mordor.http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,3996-4.html

It’s honestly pretty sad how poorly optimized games have become lately—it feels like they're just broken from the jump. It isn't even really about running out of VRAM on my $1067 card; it's more that these titles are just insanely demanding for no reason.

When they aren't fundamentally optimized for PC, it ends up feeling almost as demanding as running an emulator 🤣

BTW, I wouldn't say anything is actually "stuttering" on a GTX 970

If you want a deep dive into the graphics performance, check out this breakdown in English—it’s got plenty of solid testing data here.

It's also been right here for a few months now

I’ve been running Max Payne 3 at a resolution of 1680x1050—everything is cranked up to Ultra settings—and I'm seeing an average of around 190 FPS. Far Cry 4 is holding steady at 90 FPS, while Dead Rising 3 hits about 30 FPS—though that's really only because the game is hard-capped at 30. As for Assassin's Creed Unity 45 fps, it actually feels pretty smooth... honestly, once I finally pick up a Full HD monitor, it's going to be perfect.

I'd probably skip the Full HD setting; it's got 🤣only about 3.5GB
.

crimsonstag84 Did you get that new update from NVIDIA yet?

Quote: Ready for the best gaming experience for Evolve
Quote: Ready for the best gaming experience for Evolve

Gaming Technology performance—it’s one of those things that honestly feels like it changes overnight, doesn't it? One day you're struggling to get a decent frame rate, and the next, everything just feels smooth. It really makes you wonder how much further we can actually push these systems before we hit a wall.
We're seeing some solid performance improvements across a wide range of GeForce GPUs lately. To give you an idea of what we're looking at, here are a few examples:

Thinking about picking up a GeForce GTX 980? It’s certainly an interesting choice depending on what you're looking to get out of your setup. Honestly, if you're aiming for that sweet spot of Full HD gaming, it still holds its own quite nicely—though, of course, everything depends on which titles you're prioritizing. Are you more into heavy hitters like Dragon Age or maybe something like BioShock Infinite? Depending on your specific build, the performance can vary, but it's definitely a solid piece of hardware to consider.
Full HD
• GRID Autosport: seeing gains of up to 12%
Alien: Isolation sees an uplift of up to 6%.
Dragon Age: Inquisition sees a boost of up to 4%—not huge, but certainly a nice little nudge.

2560x1440?
You can get up to 10% off Metro: Last Light—not a bad deal if you're looking to pick it up.
Dragon Age: Inquisition: up to 7%
Maybe we're looking at a boost of up to 5% for The Crew—not huge, but certainly something to note.

3840x2160—so, we're talking 4K now? It’s quite a jump from standard Full HD, isn't it?
• GRID Autosport: seeing an increase of up to 13%
Dragon Age: Inquisition—seeing an uptick of about 6%.
Far Cry 4: looking at an increase of up to 6%—not exactly a massive jump, but definitely something to note.

GeForce GTX 970 1920 x1080
Full HD
You can expect a boost of up to 13% in BioShock Infinite—not a bad jump at all, right?
You can see up to a 12% boost in Assassin's Creed Unity—not bad at all, right?
• GRID Autosport: seeing up to a 12% boost

What about 2560x1440?
• GRID: Autosport: up to 11%
You can see an improvement of up to 11% in Assassin's Creed Unity—not too bad, right?
BioShock Infinite—you're looking at an uplift of up to 8%.

4K resolution.
• GRID: Autosport: up to 10% boost
WarThunder: seeing an uptick of about 8%.
You'll see a boost of up to 7% in Assassin's Creed Unity—not too shabby, right?

Thinking about picking up a GeForce GTX 960 1920 x1080 • Assassin's Creed Unity? It’s one of those cards that really makes you wonder where the sweet spot for budget gaming actually lies—you know, that perfect balance between price and actual usability? For a lot of us, it’s a solid entry point, especially if you aren't looking to drop a massive paycheck on a top-tier rig just to get through your backlog. It handles things decently enough at Full HD, provided you aren't trying to crank every single setting to the absolute max. Is it a powerhouse by today's standards? Not exactly. But for a smooth, reliable experience in titles like BioShock Infinite or even some older classics, it still holds its own quite nicely.
Full HD
You might see a boost of up to 7% in Assassin's Creed Unity—not a massive leap, but definitely something you'd notice if you're looking for that extra bit of smoothness.
Far Cry 4: seeing a bump of up to 4%.
Crysis 3: maybe a 3% bump?

So, we're looking at 2560x1440 now? That's quite a jump from standard Full HD—definitely a sweet spot if you want that extra bit of clarity without needing a NASA-grade rig to push frames. Is anyone else making the switch to 1440p lately, or are you all sticking with the classic 1080p setup for now?
You can snag up to 10% off on Assassin's Creed Unity—not a bad deal if you're looking to dive back into that world.
Far Cry 4: looking at an increase of up to 4%—not exactly a massive jump, but every little bit helps, right?
WarThunder: roughly 3% improvement

Here is the test system configuration:
Intel Core i7 5930k Asus X99 Deluxe 16GB Memory Windows 8.1 x64 performance
So, I was looking back at some of my old setups—specifically that Intel Core i7 5930k Asus X99 Deluxe 16GB Memory Windows 8.1 x64 performance build—and it really makes you wonder how far we've come, doesn't it? It feels like just yesterday we were obsessing over every single spec to get things running smoothly.
16GB memory—is that still enough? Just wondering where we all stand on this these days.
Windows 8.1 x64

I’ve been looking into the performance jumps between driver 347.25 and 347.52—specifically after normalizing everything against the most recent game patches. Does anyone else feel like the numbers shift once you account for those updates? It's interesting to see how much of a difference a simple driver tweak makes when the games themselves are constantly being patched.