GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

Quote: The New Guy

Adam Moore3 said:Would it be an issue if I started a new thread about buying a graphics card within the existing sticky titled "Buying a graphics card?" — Radeon 380 x 🙄 In that specific price bracket—honestly, you won't find anything better than the R9 380 x.

My apologies—I wasn't paying close enough attention and ended up rushing this thread out a bit too quickly.😵 If they can—could someone please move the moderator?

So, what kind of CPU and PSU are you running?

So, here is the current build:
ASUS M5A97 R2
AMD FX-6100 @ 3.576 GHz
Kingston HyperX DDR3-1333 2x4GB
Corsair VS450
OCZ Trion 100 120GB SSD

If you go with the R9 380 x, you're definitely going to need a new power supply. A GTX 960 might work, though it's maybe 15-20% slower. I'd also suggest picking up a better cooler and trying to overclock that CPU to around 4.2GHz, just because you might run into a bit of a bottleneck otherwise.

http://www.amazon.com/s?k=GTX+960+4GB

So, what kind of PSU would you suggest for an R9 380 x?

Kyle Martin67 said:Alright, what kind of PSU would you recommend for an R9 380 x?

How much cash are we talking about here? You really shouldn't settle for anything less than a solid, high-quality 500W unit.

...500-$200 is what I'd go with.

Thanks so much!

Here’s a bit of a rare find online. A full benchmark of all the current integrated graphics chips tested in a brand-new game

Timothy Kim60 said:Here’s something you almost never see online: a benchmark of all current integrated graphics running a modern game.

Whoa, XCOM 2 isn't even that demanding, and I'm getting about 40 FPS on 720p low settings. And that's with 2666 MHz memory. Honestly, I expected more from the 7870K.
By the way, the 7890K is out, but there aren't any reviews for it yet.

At the end of the day, the 7870K and 7890K are basically just overclocked 7850Ks anyway.
This A6 dual-core is surprisingly decent, but honestly, I don't think it's worth the investment when the A8 quad-cores aren't much more expensive—plus, you really can't rely on just two cores these days.

Especially those two AMD cores. And $67 honestly, upgrading to a faster processor and a better GPU doesn't make that much of a difference

Prices on pretty much all APUs have dropped lately, and you can actually snag an A8 7600 for around $610-$$207. I guess buying a dual-core isn't really worth it anymore. You're basically getting a processor and a GPU combo for $167+$500-$$183 at only $33.

Guys, what should I grab if I just want smooth playback for even the heaviest 4K movies on my TV? I don't care about gaming at all, just pure video playback

https://www.amazon.com/graphics-card/dp/B00000000

It should be fine, I guess...

crimsonstag84 said:https://www.bestbuy.com/site/graphics-card-example

Should be fine...

Wait, shouldn't he be looking for something with a DisplayPort? HDMI might only handle 4K at 30Hz, whereas DisplayPort can do 60Hz. I remember reading something about that on a tech blog ages ago, correct me if I'm wrong.

True enough... though I guess movies rarely go above 4K/24FPS anyway. Or am I off base?

If we're talking a DisplayPort option, maybe an R7 250 x Flex would work.

Honestly, I don't even think the human eye should be able to notice much of a difference between 24 FPS and anything higher. Take The Hobbit, for example—it was shot at 48 FPS, yet you can't really see any real difference.

fadedorca66 As if we haven't heard this all before, right?
So, what’s the play here if I want to actually enjoy my life and watch 4K movies on the big screen without everything stuttering like crazy? I don't care about gaming at all—that's completely off the table—so I just need something that can handle heavy video playback smoothly. Any recommendations?

If you're already running an Intel CPU, do you even really need to bother with anything else?

Adam Moore3 said:I mean, let’s be honest, shouldn't the human eye even struggle to distinguish between 24 FPS and anything higher? Take *The Hobbit*, for instance, which was shot at 48 FPS—you can't actually perceive a meaningful difference, can you?

It isn't really a concern for the naked eye if that HDMI port can't push more than 30 FPS at that specific resolution, is it? Of course, there is absolutely a noticeable difference—I can't recall the exact technical specifics off the top of my head, but I am one hundred percent certain that any scene involving panning will look a million times better with a higher frame rate.

It really needs to be a total beast—lots of DisplayPort options, all the latest tech, plenty of ports, and support for multiple monitors. Plus, it’s gotta be able to chew through even the most demanding 4K video.

I downloaded a 4K sample and my R9 270 just couldn't handle it. We tried it at the office on an i7 Haswell with integrated graphics, and that didn't work either. I guess I'll have to check if maybe it's just a VLC issue.