GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

crimsonstag84 said:Honestly, making such a huge deal out of power draw with Intel cards is a bit much... it really only applies when you're comparing an R9 390/390 x against something like a GTX 970/980.

R7 265 ~ 120W
R9 270 ~ 130W
R9 280/R9 380 ~ 180W

Alright, I’m totally going to be a fanboy here and say I'm leaning toward the R9 270, but are you guys seriously telling me the R9 280 would be total overkill for this CPU, or is the bottleneck not actually that bad? If I could track down a decent used R9 280 somewhere, I’d probably just grab it and go.

I also have an offer on a GTX 660ti for $333, but I don't know, it feels a little too old and the seller won't give me any kind of guarantee, you know?

In extreme scenarios, you might run into some slight bottlenecking, but for the most part, it’s not an issue—especially since it’s been overclocked. According to the PC Gamer tests comparing the GTX 960 and the R9 280, there wasn't any massive difference between various processors (Athlon 860, i3, i5, i7...) when playing moderately demanding titles like BioShock Infinite or Civilization. Personally, I'd lean toward the 280 because the 660ti only has about 1.5GB vs 0.5GB of extra VRAM, plus that HD7950 actually holds up even better against it today than it did back in the day.

Timothy Kim60 said:In those really extreme edge cases, you might run into some kind of bottleneck, but honestly, it probably wouldn't be a huge deal and should pass just fine, especially since it's overclocked. In that PC Gamer test comparing the GTX 960 and the R9 280, they didn't see any massive difference between the various CPUs (Athlon 860, i3, i5, i7...) specifically when playing moderately demanding games like BioShock Infinite or Civilization. Personally, I’d lean toward the 280 because the 660ti has that extra 1.5 + 0.5GB of VRAM, plus that first one (the hd7950) actually holds up even better against it now than it did back in the day.

Wait, that's news to me—what do you mean by 1.5 + 0.5 GB of RAM? How does that even work and why would anyone measure it like that?

Anyway, in the meantime, I stumbled upon this http://www.ebay.com/itm/graphics-card-listing-example

and

http://www.ebay.com/itm/graphics-card-listing-example-2

They look pretty tempting, though I have no idea if they're actually worth the money (assuming I can even snag them before someone else does).

Whatever happens, I guess I'll end up grabbing an R9 270 or maybe a new GTX 950 if I can't pull the trigger on the 280 or one of these two options above...

Hey there,
I'm stuck in a bit of a loop trying to decide between picking up an R9 380 or a GTX 960. I was looking at an ASUS model for the R9, but then there's the GTX 960 by Gigabyte. Honestly, my heart is set on the Gigabyte 960 G1 gaming—you know, that sweet triple-fan setup—but I can't find it anywhere with 2GB of VRAM. It’s also driving me crazy how many different versions there are for both cards; it's super easy to get lost in all the sub-models like the Gigabyte 960 IX, the 960wf2, or the 960oc. Plus, it looks like most of those others run at lower clock speeds than the G1 gaming version.

If you're working with a weaker power supply, maybe go for the GTX 960, otherwise an R9 380 might be better. I'd suggest sticking to the 2GB versions or just jumping to the R9 380X, since the 4GB models for both the GTX 960 and the R9 380 are priced way too close to the R9 380X anyway.

I was thinking along the lines of something like this: or maybe

If you're looking at 2GB cards, you're actually better off grabbing an R9 380. They're more budget-friendly—you can find models from ASUS and Gigabyte under $533—and they generally punch a bit harder than the GTX 960. Just make sure your power supply can handle the extra juice.

The power supply should be fine (XFX 550w). Thx.

wiredotter14 said:or maybe just spend a bit more

http://www.newegg.com/p/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-950-OC-2GB/

Is this card actually worth grabbing? It’s right at my budget limit. I caught a review from some guy overseas who overclocked the core by +200 and his temps didn't even cross 60°C under load! Is that even realistic for a single-fan setup with a tiny heatsink and no heat pipes? Noise levels are about 32dB at idle and 42dB when it's working hard. Not sure how loud that really is, but my CPU stock cooler hits about 65dB on the same app.🤔

From a thermal standpoint, I think it’s pretty much as good as it gets.
Even if you overclock it, that card is going to sit right around where my 7850 sits in terms of power draw—just one fan and a small heatsink. We're still talking about cards pulling up to 150W, so a single 90mm fan should be more than enough to handle it.

😲 XFX AMD RADEON R9 390X DD for $1.00...it's not a bad deal considering the GTX 970 and R9 390 are hovering around $300-$340 at Best Buy (using those cheap, non-reference coolers).

Assuming there isn't a typo here, 😬

EDIT: Yeah, it's definitely a mistake. There's no DD version rocking a 1050 MHz core clock; this is just your standard 390 😢

Those are just the reference specs... the actual model is the 390X.

Whatever, honestly. In my opinion, it isn't even worth the extra $300$133 compared to the 390. Plus, you still get that full 2-year warranty

Timothy Kim60 said:Whatever, meh. Honestly, it’s not worth an extra $300$133 over the 390. Plus, you get that 2-year warranty

That’s why I checked the prices for those cards at the same retailer. The cheapest 390 available (with a 3-year warranty) is $1050. So there's a $58 difference... I don't know, personally, I think it's worth that extra $58, though I still feel like now isn't the best time to buy into an "old generation" card. Prices will likely drop even further right before Polaris/Pascal hits the market, just like what happened with the 290 series🍿

He’s already running something like a GTX 970 from $867... though, looking at this $3,000 budget, it might actually be worth holding out for the next generation (fingers crossed)

When you look at those cards above the R9 390 and the GTX 970, the price-to-performance ratio is honestly abysmal compared to the older models. Plus, after three generations stuck on the 28nm process, we've got 14nm and 16nm architecture just around the corner. You’d have to be pretty bold to drop cash on high-end cards right now

Timothy Kim60 said:Plus, after three generations on 28nm, they're pivoting to 14nm and 16nm architectures. It’s a massive leap. Honestly, you'd have to be pretty reckless to drop cash on high-end cards right now.

I'm genuinely curious how much current gen prices will tank once the new stuff actually hits the market.

Has there ever been such a massive gap in manufacturing process shifts—or this much rebranding nonsense—in previous years?

Just looking at this from a neutral perspective: I honestly think it’s going to be incredibly hard to top the GTX 970. If you ask me, it’s an absolute beast of a card.

wiredotter14 said:I’m really curious to see how current gen pricing will shift once the next big thing actually drops.

Has there ever been such a massive gap in manufacturing process shifts or these long rebranding cycles in previous years?

It never stalled quite like this during the 28nm era. That happened because the move to 20nm just wasn't viable for high-performance chips—it worked for mobile, sure, but not for desktop powerhouses. While FinFET technology makes things possible now, shrinking the node hasn't been nearly as smooth since we moved past 28nm.

Hi everyone—I'm currently on the hunt for a new graphics card, and my budget is sitting right around $667.
Thanks!

Is it an issue if I start a new thread about buying a graphics card instead of using the sticky topic titled "Buying a graphics card?" 🙄 Radeon 380 x in that price range, nothing better than that.