Are you running an NVIDIA GeForce GT 730 or a 7750? (Check Speccy or GPU-Z). If it’s a 7750, is it the DDR3 or DDR5 version?
Unfortunately, even with a few hundred bucks, you can only pick up an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB—which is basically just a tweaked NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti anyway. You won't see much of a performance jump unless you're currently stuck with a 7750 DDR3.
Also, you're going to need a better power supply than that no-name unit you've got. In that case, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 is probably your best bet since it pulls less power.
EDIT
If he actually happens to have an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti, then upgrading is definitely not worth his money. But then again, if he had that, he wouldn't be complaining about the resolution in the first place.🤷 The power supply is Spira—it's junk no matter how you look at it.
Alexander Moore67 said:If an R9 280 pulls 250W under full load, I’d love to know how your 360W unit is going to handle it.
1. The R9 280 doesn't pull 250W. That's more what a 280X hits during a stress test (it sits closer to 200W while gaming). The R9 280 pulls about 170Where, which is similar to its GTX 760 counterpart.
For comparison, these are the results from a setup running a 2600K @ 4.5 GHz at 1.35V paired with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680.
2D ~100 W DiRT3 ~245 W Furmark ~260 W
The R9 280 is essentially equal to the HD7950.
As you can see from the link above, the guy using an i7 3770 with a 280X is pulling roughly 280-290W during gameplay. There was also another forum member using the exact same power supply as crimsonstag84, and he managed to run an i5 3570K at 4.2GHz alongside an R9 280X.
2. That specific power supply is rated at 360W only because that's what it provides on the +12V rail. If you look at the review, you'll notice it actually handled loads exceeding 430W. You can't just look at the printed wattage; there's a lot more to the math than that.
The future looks bleak for power-hungry builds 😬 If you look at how the Maxwell architecture is shaping up, we’re never going to need power supplies pushing past 400-500W for a single GPU again. Right now, those massive power draws are just outliers—think things like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 or high-end Titan cards. Even those won't stay at the top of the food chain for long; give it another generation or two, and even the high-end market will move past that level of consumption completely.
fadedorca66 said:Sure, it’s an older architecture, but Microsoft chips delivered roughly a 20-30% performance boost, which you've essentially made up for through overclocking.
You're overstating things. Clock-for-clock in synthetic benchmarks, the jump was maybe 6%, and the Microsoft/Microsoft Refresh update added another 6%, bringing the total delta to about 12%. In actual gaming and real-world usage, there isn't a noticeable difference.
EDIT
Single-player mode, using a GTX 780 link Most people are running monitors with a 60-75Hz refresh rate, meaning any FPS gains beyond that 60-75 range are practically invisible.
Your colleague is being a bit dense here. 😬 I’ve personally had CPUs running continuously for eight years straight, and I know plenty of older models out there that are still going strong. Take a Pentium II, for example—that tech is about 16 years old and still functions perfectly fine (even if I haven't used it actively in at least 6 or 7 years, including when I handed it off to my neighbor's kids). Then there was an Athlon 3500+ from 2006 that I finally pulled out of a build last year; it wasn't broken, just too slow to even browse the web anymore, and it hadn't been sitting idle for years before that. It was a workhorse until it hit its performance ceiling.
At the end of the day, you can't really pin down an exact lifespan because most people simply don't push their hardware hard enough to find the limit.
Age doesn't really matter here. Aside from minor improvements to integrated graphics, processor architecture hasn't seen any massive leaps since the Sandy Bridge era. Plus, CPUs rarely just die on you; there's a 99.99% chance you'll never encounter a hardware failure during your entire lifetime.
Who says nothing here is worth it? This price hike is just a new variable to deal with. It ends up costing you about as much as a future 280X; I linked it for you earlier at around $300, but as I mentioned, the 280X stock performance is basically on par with a 280 custom model (and I'm not even talking about a slight factory overclock). With this Gigabyte model, you'll also get an extended warranty.
You’re definitely going to feel a jump in performance, though I'm honestly not sure how Crossfire works with the Radeon HD 7770, so it's hard to quantify the exact leap. Since you mentioned getting worse results with two cards than with one, here is a comparison using a single card: click
Look, having a three-year warranty isn't even a requirement here. For that price point, you’re getting the absolute best deal possible: the top-tier Radeon R9 280 Toxic card from Future. It's a steal, especially since $6.75 any order over $2,000 gets free shipping .
Personally, I wouldn't pull the trigger because the price gap with the R9 290 is just too narrow. Besides, once you start overclocking a 280, you're basically getting performance right in line with a 280X.
There isn't really any way to mess this up. It’s either going into the slot or it isn't. Honestly, it falls into the "do it yourself" category—you get all the instructions you need anyway.
Maybe if nobody else steps up—perhaps. $267 For everything listed above.
rapidpuma59 said:I've come across two more old items that I no longer have any use for:
CTR Dell UltraSharp Monitor i
NVIDIA GeForce GT series
Is it worth it?
The graphics card is basically non-existent—it’s a "whatever you can get" situation.
The monitor still holds some value, though that really depends on what kind of buyer you happen to run into. $50But according to Craigslist, the competition is actually pretty fierce—it looks like people are practically giving away 17" CRT monitors for pennies.
Gregory Hayes87 said:2015... between Battlefield, Call of Duty, and GTA—if that even ever actually happens...
Looking at the big picture, the R9 270 is actually a solid choice for... $433 Look, it’s pretty obvious: if you're running a Phenom at stock settings, you're going to run headfirst into a massive bottleneck in certain titles. It's just basic math. However, in other games—as I've mentioned before—you'll actually find yourself running things significantly smoother without any issues at all.
I can't speak to NBA—I’ve never played it, and I couldn't find any decent CPU benchmarks online for it. However, you could definitely run Call of Duty: Black Ops II smoothly with that setup, based on what we know. ovogaAs well as, and also... Battlefield 3 i Battlefield 4 In single-player mode, having a more powerful GPU makes a world of difference, but multiplayer is an entirely different beast. In that scenario, you're going to run into a CPU bottleneck instead.
Honestly, picking up an R7 265 or a GTX 750 Ti just isn't worth the headache. They’re priced way too close to the R9 270 to make any sense. If you're looking at the lower end of the spectrum, the only real option is the R7 260X—but even then, with the dollar being as strong as it is right now, those prices have spiked so much they've become practically ridiculous.
Sam Murphy said:I've got an XFX graphics card up for grabs on Craigslist. It's an R9 270, currently sitting in my rig. Everything is working perfectly fine, just looking to move it along. If you're interested, shoot me a message.
Is it actually worth picking up this used one?
Look, there isn't any fresh stock coming in, and there's nothing else new on the market either, so you might as well just grab it.
Between the R9 270 and the XFX model, go with the XFX ($433 at Micro Center)
But more importantly, what kind of games are you actually planning to play? For most modern AAA titles, both of these cards are going to be a major bottleneck. For instance, if you take an Athlon 955 (3.2GHz) paired with an HD7850 2GB—which is roughly similar to an R7 260X, just slightly weaker—and try running Watch Dogs 1.03, you'll run into trouble. That game is notoriously poorly optimized and puts a massive strain on the CPU. click - check out the GPU usage here; ideally, you want that hitting the ceiling (just ignore the last four bars since they aren't from the actual gameplay)
Honestly, it all boils down to your library. There are certain games where even an HD7970 (like an R9 280X) wouldn't even hit a bottleneck because the CPU is doing all the heavy lifting anyway.