GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

Paul Miller64 said:I probably won't be picking up a GPU until mid-year,
just doing some research right now.

In that case, there's really no point in asking 🕺

Maybe check back in when you're actually 4 or 5 days away from buying. 😛

Paul Miller64 said:I probably won't be pulling the trigger on a GPU until mid-year,
so right now I'm just doing some research.

Sigh, by then there will likely be brand new Nvidia and AMD graphics cards out anyway.

Timothy Kim60 said:Man, by then there will probably be plenty of new Nvidia and AMD graphics cards out anyway.

So, roughly when are those new AMD graphics cards dropping? Also, I was just sitting here wondering—why doesn't Sapphire Technology make Nvidia cards?

We don't have a definitive date yet, though it might happen sometime this spring.

Since Sapphire Technology is strictly an AMD partner, link, they operate much like how Palit, Gainward, Zotac, and others focus exclusively on producing cards with Nvidia chips.

You'll notice that companies like ASUS, Gigabyte, and MSI are massive conglomerates that manufacture all sorts of hardware—similar to how MBO operates—so they aren't nearly as tied to any single GPU manufacturer.

What kind of GPU is actually worth grabbing instead of this MSI Radeon R7 7770?

M5A97 R 2.0
FX 8350
8 GB DDR3 RAM
CX 500

Maybe $1000$500 max.
I’ve got this nagging feeling my power supply is a bit weak, since the CPU alone pulls about 250W, but hey, if there's anything decent I can snag in that price range, let me know.
I mean, honestly, I'm not even sweating it until The Witcher 3 actually drops.
My current card doesn't support Crossfire anyway.

double

Kenneth Jackson3 said:What GPU would be worth picking up instead of the MSI Radeon R7 7770?

M5A97 R 2.0
FX 8350
8 GB RAM
CX 500

$1000-$500 max.
I have a feeling my power supply is weak since the CPU alone pulls 250W, but if there's anything worth grabbing in that range, let me know.
I'm not even sweating it until The Witcher 3 drops.
My current card doesn't support Crossfire

There is zero chance your CPU alone is pulling 250W; that's likely your entire system under a light load. You can easily upgrade to an AMD Radeon R9 270X without any issues.

Honestly, I’d just hold out until AMD drops their next lineup and Nvidia finally releases the Nvidia GTX 960. That kind of competition would definitely tank the prices on what's out right now, making it worth the wait. Better to be patient than to bite yourself with regret in two months because you rushed into a purchase too early.

@Adam Moore3/">@@Adam Moore3 - my bad, 125W.

Sean Garcia3 said:I’d honestly just sit tight until AMD drops their next series and Nvidia releases the Nvidia GTX 960. That should definitely push current card prices down, so I'd grab one then instead of being stuck regretting how impatient I was a couple of months ago.

Fair point, 👍 I guess I can hold out for another 4 or 5 months before I start looking around.

Kenneth Jackson3 said:Which GPU would be a smart upgrade over the MSI Radeon R7 7770?

M5A97 R 2.0
FX 8350
8 GB DDR3 RAM
CX 500

$1000-$500 max.
I have a hunch my power supply might be struggling since the CPU alone pulls about 250W, but if there's anything worth grabbing in this price range, I'm all ears.
Honestly, I'm not even sweating it until The Witcher 3 drops.
My current card doesn't support Crossfire.

If you aren't in a rush, I’d suggest waiting a few months if I were in your shoes. We have new mainstream cards on the horizon—Nvidia will definitely release something, and AMD will too. If you hold out, we'll also see a few more demanding titles like GTA 5 hit the scene, which can serve as great benchmarks (since The Witcher 3 isn't coming until May anyway) to give us a better idea of what future games will actually require.

Yeah, I can see you're pretty hyped for The Witcher (like any sane gamer 😬). Honestly, maybe along with Dying Light or a few other titles, you might run into some trouble actually getting things to launch—though even that’s debatable. I seriously doubt a 660Ti will even hit the minimum requirements for The Witcher; that's just ridiculous. So, my take? You can probably hang tight until the game finally drops in May. Even now, the 7770 is still a decent enough card. 🙂

Adam Moore3 said:( though even then, I highly doubt a 660Ti will be enough to run The Witcher; that would be ridiculous )

They’ve listed the GTX 660 (not the Ti) and the HD7870 as the bare minimum requirements. That's the lowest we've seen so far. Honestly, though, we won't know how it actually performs until it drops—so let's not get ahead of ourselves. But knowing that studio and their track record with the previous two entries of The Witcher, they don't mess around; even hitting those minimum specs is going to be a struggle.

Exactly.
I mean, I'll just save up until then and $667 maybe pick up something a bit more decent. I'm honestly pretty hyped for The Witcher and I am not messing around here. 😬

I know, but it’s honestly ridiculous. An i5 2500K, a GTX 660, and 6 GB of RAM just for the MINIMUM system requirements? That’s basically a PC worth at least $1333. You can't even build a budget gaming rig anymore and still expect to play anything decently... Seriously, just two months ago I put together an Athlon 740 and a 260X setup for a friend—that's a quad-core CPU paired with a card that's nearly $300—and according to their specs, he can't even dream of running it. It's absurd.

Kenneth Jackson3 said:Exactly.
I'll just save up until then and $667 grab something actually decent. I've got my heart set on The Witcher and I'm not looking to mess around 😬

Look, if you're going to go all out, just save up $833 and pick up a high end card from the new AMD lineup once they drop, or maybe a GTX 970, so you can actually run things on max settings since you're clearly hyped for it.

It is frankly absurd and quite rude. I fear their arrogance will eventually be their undoinng. That minimum specification is sheer madness—an i5 paired with a GTX 660? One has to wonder what they consider a "recommended" setup. Perhaps an R9 290x in Crossfire alongside an i7 overclocked to 5GHz? It’s ridiculous. We should boycott them, honestly.

For instance, something like a 3rd Gen Pentium with 4GB of RAM and an R7 250 ought to be able to run absolutely everything on some sort of baseline setting. This is just another instance of pure lunacy.

Honestly, when does a major generational shift actually happen in gaming? I posted about this exact topic on this forum a few years back—it was always predictable. The last time we saw a massive jump like this was around 2007, when the new consoles launched and next-gen titles really started to take off.

That said, you should take those system requirements with a grain of salt. Some of them were just absolute nonsense for SOM, making it seem like the game runs perfectly fine on a dual-core; the "recommended" CPUs feel totally unnecessary since the game isn't even that CPU-intensive. In practice, performance is basically identical on an i3 versus an i7, though a beefier GPU definitely helps.

Here is mellowtiger83, who apparently doesn't know how to Google recommended specs :P w3 - it's pretty strange that the Phenom II 940 is being grouped in with the 2500K. My guess is developers are just padding the numbers through some technical workaround.

Word is that the game is already pushing the hardware limits of next-gen consoles, and everyone has known for at least a year now that it's going to be incredibly demanding:

On the game’s PC specs, he teased, “(Laughs) We’ll be releasing that information soon, but you can already start saving up for an upgrade.”

We'll see how it plays out. There's a rumor floating around that the graphics were downgraded—similar to what happened with Watch Dogs—because the original vision was just too much for the hardware, which could very well be the truth.

I mean, it'll probably run on low settings with a Phenom II X2 and an HD 5770 eventually 😬

crimsonstag84 - you can't even give it a two, let alone a three 🙂

Timothy Kim60 said:Well, we'll see. I mean, there's this theory going around that they downgraded the graphics—kind of like what happened with Watch Dogs—because the original look was just a bit too much. Which, honestly, could totally be true.

No way, man. Not unless it's about optimization. We all know why Watch Dogs got hit with a downgrade, but that doesn't really make sense for The Witcher.

mellowtiger83 said:It’s just absurd, honestly. And I’m worried their arrogance is gonna bite them in the ass. That minimum spec is insane... an i5 and a GTX 660? And then the recommended specs??? Maybe an R9 290x crossfire setup with an i7 overclocked to 5ghz? WTF. People should just boycott them, screw 'em...

Like, say you have some Pentium G series, 4GB of RAM, and an R7 250; that should be able to run pretty much anything on some kind of low setting. This is just ridiculous again.

I guess, unfortunately for both of us, you can't really expect new games to run on the same old rigs forever.

Anyway, let's move this over to the gama lobby on the forums before we get banned.🙂

Kenneth Jackson3 said:crimsonstag84 - you can't even give that a two, let alone a three.🙂

No chance. The only way is through optimization. We all know why Western Digital was downgraded, and that just doesn't make sense for The Witcher.

To your regret and mine, you can't expect new games to run on the same hardware forever.

Let's move this over to the gaming lobby in the forum before we get banned.🙂

That's true, you're right, but every game needs to work on roughly three different gaming setups—say, a G3220, 4GB of RAM, and a Radeon R7 260. It simply has to. What I listed isn't exactly weak.🙂, if they aren't capable of optimizing the code properly.

I don't have an issue with having a powerful rig, but for some people, it is. Plenty of folks who want to play won't be able to, even with decent configurations like the one mentioned above.

An AMD 750k and a Radeon R7 260X supposedly won't run the game? Of course they will. People will spend their last cent to buy a PC like the one in my example, only to hit a brick wall.