GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

Joshua Patel68 said:Is it actually worth dropping an extra $250$100 just to get an extra year of warranty on a GPU?

Nah, honestly, you shouldn't even have to consider that... companies like ASUS, MSI, or EVGA usually give you a solid 3-year warranty anyway... if the shop you're looking at is trying to offer you less than that, I'd say just skip them... there are plenty of other budget-friendly retailers out there that won't rip you off like that...

Exactly! Brands like NVIDIA, ASUS, and burn offer 2-year warranties and usually end up being about $250 cheaper on average, much like how you'd save on a $100 ( GTX970 )
.

I guess it’s worth it, just because you know you won't have to worry about anything for three years. Plus, if you decide to flip it before then, you'll probably make more money anyway.

Joshua Patel68 said:Exactly, and brands like NVIDIA, ASUS, or Palit... they usually only give you a 2-year warranty and they end up being cheaper on average by about 250 bucks $100 ( GTX970 )

Where on earth did you find that? Is it actually cheaper than this one?

electricharbor30 said:Where did you track that down? Is it actually a better deal than this one?

Well, I didn't account for the Canadian factor! 😁

Are they actually reliable?

Joshua Patel68 said:Well, I guess I didn't really account for the 😁
factor.
Are they actually reliable enough, though?

So, I ended up grabbing an SSD from this other shop over in Canada—Extreme Digital—and honestly, it showed up factory-sealed within like seven days, complete with a full five-year warranty. Just to put that in perspective, some local stores here might give you a shorter warranty on the exact same drive, sure, but you get it in two days or even tomorrow, except the box is already ripped open and covered in some random store sticker... so yeah. Right now, I'm sticking with Micro Center because they have that rewards program where you rack up points, and eventually, you can probably swap those points for something decent, which feels pretty useful, I guess. Once I sell off my current rig, I’ll probably just grab my motherboard, CPU, and GPU from them, and then I'll let everyone know if everything went smoothly... personally, if something breaks, I'd much rather deal with a shop in Canada than try to chase down someone in China, and from what I can tell, nobody really cares about buying stuff off eBay anyway. This place seems totally legit to me...

electricharbor30 said:I grabbed an SSD from another Canadian retailer, Extreme Digital... it arrived factory-sealed within seven days, complete with a full five-year warranty. Just for context, some local shops here offer shorter warranties for the exact same drive, even if you get it in two days or tomorrow—but then it shows up with an open box and some random store sticker slapped on it. Right now, I'm shopping at iBuyPower because they have a rewards program where you rack up points that you can eventually trade in for gear, which is pretty handy. Once I sell my current rig, I plan to grab a motherboard, CPU, and GPU from them, so I'll let you guys know if the experience is smooth. Personally, if things go south, I'd much rather deal with a vendor in Canada than someone in China. As for eBay orders, it looks like nobody really cares either way. This is a legitimate business.

Look, this is actually $167 cheaper than what we see locally. Plus, I'm fairly sure iBuyPower is on NVIDIA's list of recommended retailers. It seems like a solid deal. From what I can tell, can you just order online and pay the courier when they drop it off at your door?

Yeah, that’s why Extreme Digital pulled out of the US market. They were peddling faulty gear and then dragging their feet on warranties for months...

Robert Rodriguez2 said:Exactly! That’s why Extreme Digital pulled out of the US market entirely. They were shipping out faulty gear, and getting a warranty claim handled took forever...

Look, Extreme Digital is a whole different story; they faced a mountain of complaints. Personally, I haven't seen any issues with Apple products.

Joshua Patel68 said:So look, this seems like $167 a better deal than what we usually see over here in the States... And if I recall correctly, this one is actually on Nvidia's list of recommended retailers... It'll probably be worth the money. From what I can tell, can you just order it online and pay the delivery guy when he shows up at your door?

Yeah, you can...

Anyway, www.gpuzoo.com

http://www.gpuzoo.com/Compare/ASUS_G...0-SL-2GD3-BRK/

It's a great site, honestly, gives you a pretty solid idea of the pros and cons of what you're buying...

You just get an intro full of numbers that don't really mean much, I guess.

fadedorca66 said:You just get an intro to some numbers that don't really mean much specifically.

+1

http://www.gpuzoo.com/Compare/ZOTAC_...I-P-6G-GAMING/

I’m sitting here looking at this and honestly, I don't even know where to start. After wading through all those descriptions, it’s like they’re telling me pixel fillrate doesn't matter because you've got a solid CPU, then texture fillrate is just for "visual flair," and memory bandwidth is supposedly only there for extra stuff like anti-aliasing... so I guess that leaves us with nothing but GFLOPS, which the site claims actually impacts gaming performance. But what they totally gloss over—which is kind of wild if you think about it—is how much VRAM is actually on the card. Apparently, having more memory is only useful for storing textures and has zero impact on actual performance, or so they want us to believe...

fadedorca66 said:You’re basically getting an introduction to numbers that don't really mean anything specific.

I mean, I don't know, maybe it can't be any more precise than this... it gives you a pretty direct look at the hardware you're buying, its capabilities, and what you might actually expect from it.

http://www.gpuzoo.com/Compare/ASUS_G...US_GT730-2GD3/

So, this is a comparison between the 128-bit and 64-bit NVIDIA GeForce GT 730... and I guess this is probably why review sites don't usually recommend the 128-bit version. If someone went with the DDR5 version instead, they'd likely see some benefit from the memory bandwidth, which might let them actually turn on anti-aliasing and stuff like that...

In my book, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 740 is basically the absolute bare minimum you need if you want to play anything these days.

electicharbor30 said:http://www.gpuzoo.com/Compare/ASUS_G...US_GT730-2GD3/

Comparing the 128-bit and 64-bit versions of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730... probably why review sites don't touch the 128-bit model. If you went with the DDR5 version, you'd actually get some decent memory bandwidth—enough to maybe turn on antialiasing without everything crawling to a halt.

Might be a dumb question, but how did the GT 730 go from being Fermi to now being Kepler? That's a completely different chip architecture.

Chris Robinson25 said:I mean, I guess you could say the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 740 is basically the absolute bare minimum if you even want to think about gaming these days.

So, like, an NVIDIA GeForce GT 730 with a 64-bit bus might scrape by at 720p on medium settings, I suppose... but then again, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 740 has a better pixel fillrate, so maybe it could actually handle 1680*1050 on medium, though you'd probably need a pretty decent CPU to keep up with it...

wiredotter14 said:This might sound like a pretty dumb question, but how does it work that the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730 used to be based on Fermi architecture and now it's Kepler? Like, isn't that a totally different chip altogether?

Well, I guess the Fermi version was just the 128-bit one.

electricharbor30 said:I'm looking at this and scratching my head. After reading through all these specs, they claim pixel fill rate doesn't matter if you have a SoC processor, texture fill rate is just for visual flair, and memory bandwidth is only relevant for extra effects like anti-aliasing... which leaves us with nothing but GFLOPS, which the description claims actually impacts gaming performance. What they fail to mention is the amount of VRAM on the card itself, which apparently only matters for storing textures and has zero impact on actual performance...

You're barking up the wrong tree. The GPU chip is EVERYTHING. All that talk about texture fill rate, fill rate, memory bandwidth, or VRAM capacity—those are just individual components that make up the whole. Of course, drivers matter too; if the software is garbage, the hardware will underperform.

What you're doing is like trying to figure out which car is faster by checking the windshield wipers, how much glue is in the tires, the seats, the bodywork, or whether there's an air freshener hanging from the mirror, while completely ignoring the engine (which is what actually counts).

Take this example from your link (this was just my first thought; I'm sure there are even more extreme cases)

http://www.gpuzoo.com/Compare/AFOX_A...P/2DI/1GD5/V2/

Which GPU do you think is more powerful? This is exactly why we constantly tell people not to rely solely on HWCompare and similar sites.

I previously sent you a link regarding GFLOPS (for instance, Fury x vs Titan x)

Timothy Kim60 said:Man, you're wasting your breath. The GPU chip is everything. It doesn't matter how much you talk about texture rates, fill rates, memory bandwidth, or VRAM capacity—those are just tiny little specs that make up the whole thing. And obviously, drivers matter too, because if the software is trash, the hardware is gonna underperform regardless.

What you're doing here is kind of like trying to figure out which car is faster by looking at the windshield wipers, checking how much glue is on the tires, looking at the seats, the bodywork, or even seeing if there's some random brand of detergent in the trunk, while totally ignoring the actual engine, which is clearly the most important part.

Like, take this link you posted, for example (just the first thing that popped into my head, and I'm sure there are way more extreme examples out there)

http://www.gpuzoo.com/Compare/AFOX_A...P/2DI/1GD5/V2/

Which one do you honestly think has the stronger GPU? This is exactly why we're always telling people not to rely on sites like HWCompare and stuff like that.

I mean, based on everything, they seem pretty close, except the 750 pulls way less power... but why is that? Have you seen any tests that say otherwise? If I'm just looking at GFLOPS, I'd guess the GTX 750 is maybe 5% faster at 1080p...

http://www.gpuzoo.com/Compare/ASUS_E...GTX750TI-2GD5/

Judging by the GFLOPS, that version is 30% faster.

http://www.gpuzoo.com/Compare/AMD_Ra...XTITANX-12GD5/

Based on this, the Fury x vs Titan x comparison shows the Fury x is way faster; the only advantage the Titan x has is handling higher resolutions... assuming you have a beast of a CPU, maybe even 4K... at lower resolutions, it can't even compete with the Fury x.

electricharbor30 said:It seems they’re roughly in the same ballpark, except the 750 pulls way less power... why is that? Have you seen any benchmarks suggesting otherwise? Based strictly on GFLOPS, I’d assume the GTX 750 would be about 5% faster at 1080p resolution...

Because in actual gaming, it’s roughly 20% more powerful. According to those links you shared, it should technically be weaker, given that it's only about 5% ahead on paper via "GFLOPS." That's the discrepancy right there.