GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

XFX AMD RADEON R9 270 DD Edition
Corsair LC6460GP3 V2.3, featuring a 140mm fan.
LC POWER PRO-923B Red Captor case paired with a SCYTHE Slip Stream 120mm fan at 1200 RPM.

Thanks 👍

So that's the plan then. I'm placing the order tomorrow—fingers crossed everything is still in stock.
It'll end up costing me about $140 a month for a year. Honestly, I can live with that.

In a few months, I'll have enough saved up to grab a decent monitor in cash, and then I'll be all set.

If anyone else has some suggestions, I'm all ears.

GTX 960

Hey everyone, my graphics card just died on me, so I'm looking to grab a replacement!
Will this MSI R7 250 1GB GDDR5 128bit, 28nm, DVI + HDMI + VGA work alright with my current setup:
cpu: Intel Pentium
mbo: Msi 760gm-e51
hdd: Western Digital HDD 1tb
napajanje: Corsair 140mm

It'll work, though the GPU is a bit weak. I assume the budget just won't allow for anything better right now. Check eBay; you might be able to snag a GTX 560 Ti for around $500-$200, which would be a solid deal. It performs right in the same ballpark as a 260X.

What's your actual usage like? If you aren't gaming or doing heavy graphics work, you might be fine just sticking with the integrated graphics on the motherboard. If you do want to play stuff, you can grab that card, but I wouldn't expect maxed-out settings or anything. Also, if you go for the R7 250, make sure you get the GDDR5 version (this one is)—there’s a cheaper DDR3 version out there that’s pretty slow.

Anyway, for about ~$33 more, you can actually get a slightly better 250x: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1124?vs=1126

Wow, I haven't actually sat down to look at the benchmarks comparing the 250 against the 250X before; I honestly thought the gap was much smaller. A 40-50% difference is definitely not a small margin... 😁

fadedorca66 said:What are you actually doing on your PC? If you aren't gaming or running heavy graphics work, you can totally just stick with the integrated graphics on your motherboard. If you are gaming, you can use that, just don't expect maxed-out settings or anything. And if you go with the R7 250, make sure you grab the GDDR5 version—that's the one I'm talking about—because there’s a cheaper DDR3 version out there that is way slower.

Otherwise, for about ~$33 more, you can get a noticeably better 250x: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1124?vs=1126

I play all sorts of games! Mostly platformers and 3rd person adventures. My old card handled Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed 3, Resident Evil 6, and Sleeping Dogs on medium without any issues! I run a CRT monitor at 1024x768 resolution.
It doesn't need to be maxed out. 😁 I'm not that kind of gamer!
And yeah, definitely GDDR5. I always look for that because there's no point in buying anything less these days! I figured since I'm buying something new, I might as well step up to something slightly better, especially since cards similar to my old one are already going for around $83.
The MSI 250 x is pricier $33, even at AMD! But it really does have better performance. 🤔 I still need to think about it, though. It's pushing my budget a bit!

Finally, here’s that highly anticipated GTX 960 everyone’s been asking about. (Just a heads-up for anyone who hasn't heard the news that it's hitting the shelves here in the States very soon)

http://www.pcekspert.com/clanak/msi-...-2g-test/?pg=7

Thomas Flores74 said:I just play various games here and there! Mostly platformers and 3rd person adventures. My old card used to run Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed 3, Resident Evil 6, and Sleeping Dogs on medium without any issues! I'm using a CRT monitor at 1024x768 resolution.
It doesn't have to be maxed out 😁 I'm not really that kind of gamer!
And it definitely needs to be GDDR5; there's zero point in looking at anything less than that nowadays. Since I'm buying something new anyway, I figured I'd grab something a bit better because cards similar to my old one are already going for $83.
The MSI 250 x is more expensive $33, even at AMD! But it actually offers better performance. 🤔 I still need to think about it, though. It's a little over my budget!

Oof, if you're playing at 1024x768, then even the 250X is going to be overkill for you 😬 Honestly, I think you'll be able to run most things on high settings at that resolution. But it's definitely worth spending that extra hundred bucks; you'll really notice the jump from the 250 to the 250X 🙂

GTX 960s just hit the shelves at Futura

EVGA iChill GTX 960

Inno GeForce GTX960 OC 2GB GDDR5 128bit

And honestly, they priced these things so high right out of the gate that they're basically a bad deal, especially when you look at the $633 r9 280x

Definitely not worth it at that price point, they're basically just $500 :/

Alright folks, I've got $1000 sitting in my pocket right now and I was leaning towards picking up an Nvidia GTX 970. But honestly, I've been second-guessing myself all day because I saw some reports about this card having issues actually utilizing the full 4 GB of VRAM. Apparently, it only really uses 3.5GB of VRAM, which apparently tanks performance in games that demand more. Meanwhile, the Nvidia GTX 980 doesn't seem to have that headache. From what I read, the VRAM on the Nvidia GTX 970 is split into two parts—one part is 3.5GB that stays active, and then there's another 0.5GB that only kicks in when a game pushes past that 3.5GB limit. I have zero clue how much truth there is to that, but I'm seriously considering just waiting for AMD to drop their next series. I have a feeling they might build something that absolutely crushes Nvidia's new lineup, maybe something hitting that level of power we saw with the AMD R9 290/290 x.
I’m no genius here, so does anyone have any advice or actually know what's going on with this situation? Also, if you guys already own an Nvidia GTX 970, have you actually run into this issue yourselves?

Yeah, I've read on several sites that this was actually done because of how the card's architecture is built. To prevent massive slowdowns caused by specific hardware design issues, they split the VRAM into two sections: one 3.5 GB chunk that the GPU can access at full speed without any trouble, and a second 500 MB portion that sees a huge drop in speed whenever it's tapped into. Honestly, games requiring more than 3.5 GB of VRAM are pretty rare, at least at standard resolutions. It’s still a great card, though. Unless you're incredibly impatient, you won't regret picking it up—but you also won't lose anything by waiting for the new AMD series. You can find a deep dive into this issue OVDJE

You can find plenty of info here over the last few pages; people have posted quite a few links. Honestly, it’s turned out to be a massive embarrassment for Nvidia. It looks like a lot of users are feeling let down—not just because of the hardware itself, but because of the dishonesty involved.

To pull a couple of examples

http://youtu.be/e85aRCFH8gM?t=42m50s
Nvidia's response:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/doe...ation-bug.html
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...ations-GTX-970
http://www.kitguru.net/components/gr...ing-a-scandal/

Word is they pulled the exact same stunt with the 550Ti and the 660Ti without anyone noticing, so they thought they could get away with it again. They just tripped up this time because modern games are absolute memory hogs when you crank everything to the max. In my opinion, it's still a great card, but apparently, things fall apart once you hit that extra 0.5 GB threshold (which you rarely even touch at 1080p, whereas an Nvidia GTX 980 or an AMD R9 290/290 x would consume more VRAM in that same scenario). Performance just tanks.

Look, I've already scrolled through all those threads. All I'm saying is that while it's true there aren't many games hitting that 4GB VRAM limit right this second, things are shifting fast. Next-gen titles are dropping constantly, and they're going to change the game. My goal with this card is simple: I want peace of mind for the next two years. I want to crank everything to max settings and pull around 40 FPS without having to stress about a single thing.
That $1000 was hard-earned; it didn't just fall from the sky for me to blow it on a GPU with compromises. Right now, I've got an Nvidia GTX 760 in my rig, which is still a total beast. Aside from the last few major releases, I've been able to max out almost everything and play without a hitch. Honestly, I’d rather just hold out until AMD drops their lineup. It’s tradition for them to have the beefier cards anyway, so I don't mind waiting. I can easily knock out the titles I haven't played yet on my Nvidia GTX 760 through 2014—there's at least ten left—and then move on to the heavy hitters once I upgrade.
Bottom line is, I'm a sucker for ultra settings and I need everything on max, so I'll probably just hang tight for a few months until AMD makes its move.

Honestly, I’m not too worried about it—I’ve got that specific card myself, and my monitor isn't even running at a massive resolution. Most people are just gaming at 1080p anyway, so you really won't run into this issue. Sure, if you're pushing 4K, you might see some problems, but let's be real: a card like this isn't exactly built to handle 4K on standard settings without stuttering regardless.

EDIT: Maybe this comes off a bit blunt, and look, I’m not exactly a huge fanboy of either Nvidia or AMD, but in most cases, Nvidia tends to have the more powerful cards—plus, they usually pull way less power than the red team. So, when AMD drops their next series and releases cards meant to compete with the Nvidia GTX 970, they'll likely be drawing a lot more juice. It’s always been that way, right? Nvidia might be pricier, but there’s usually a good reason for it.

Robert Rodriguez5 - Look, it’s true that Nvidia usually dominates the high-end market with better power efficiency, superior features, and more polished drivers. But honestly, in this specific scenario, those perks might not even matter. The Nvidia GTX 970 felt like an absolute beast when it first launched—performance, wattage, price—it was perfect. But then you factor in all that massive headache surrounding the coil whine (which people somehow just ignored at the time) plus this current mess? I don't know... it’s going to be a tough sell later on. AMD is definitely going to capitalize on this segment; they'll likely offer a much stronger card for the same price, or similar performance for even less, all while providing "real" 4GB of VRAM.

People who actually have the cash to drop on cards like these also have high-end power supplies. I highly doubt they care if one card pulls 220W while the other pulls 170W. If anything, they're going to be way more concerned about these two major issues—assuming AMD doesn't completely drop the ball.

Larry Ortiz5 said:Personally, I’m not sweating it. I’ve got the card mentioned right here, and even without a massive monitor resolution—since most people just game at 1080p anyway—you won't run into issues. Sure, if you're pushing 4K, you might have problems, but let's be real: a card like this isn't built to handle 4K on standard settings without stuttering regardless.

EDIT: This might come off as a bit cocky or rude, and look, I’m not exactly a die-hard fanboy for either Nvidia or AMD, but in most cases, Nvidia just brings more punch to the table while pulling way less power than Team Red. Once AMD drops their new series and releases cards meant to compete with the Nvidia GTX 970, they’ll likely be sucking up way more electricity. It’s always been like that. Nvidia is pricier, sure, but there’s a reason for it.

Let’s not kid ourselves here. If we're being honest, my money is usually on Intel and Nvidia over AMD, but you really have to look at certain things objectively.

Power consumption is one thing, but don't confuse it with raw performance. You aren't going to notice the difference in your electric bill, and anyone running a decent rig isn't using some bottom-of-the-barrel power supply that can't handle a high-end card. Besides, those older Nvidia 700 series models weren't exactly saving a ton of juice; that efficiency jump really started with the 900 series, and we still have to wait and see how AMD responds to that.

Just compare any AMD card to its Nvidia counterpart in the same tier. Almost none of them beat Nvidia in pure strength, except maybe for the GTX 780 Ti or Nvidia GTX 980, for which AMD hasn't released a direct rival yet.
And let's be clear: AMD cards are consistently much cheaper while offering better bang for your buck in terms of raw power. If we were judging based solely on price-to-performance, AMD would take a massive lead, but if we're strictly looking at cards within the same performance bracket, AMD actually offers a much wider variety.

Check out these examples and tell me if I'm wrong:

AMD R7 260 / AMD R7 265 is stronger than Nvidia GTX 750
AMD R7 265 is stronger than Nvidia GTX 750 Ti
AMD R9 280 is stronger than Nvidia GTX 760
AMD R9 280 x is on par with Nvidia GTX 770
AMD R9 290 is stronger than Nvidia GTX 780

We’re still waiting on the new AMD lineup, so it’s too early to compare them against the latest Nvidia stuff, though AMD's older cards still hold their own quite well.
And honestly, that damn PhysX is useless. Hardly any games even use it. I actually screwed myself by picking an Nvidia GTX 760 over an HD 7950 Vapor X just because of it.

Bottom line: Intel wins when it comes to CPUs (though AMD still holds the edge in the budget segment), but AMD takes the win when it comes to GPUs.

AMD offers better bang for your buck—there's no denying that. But don't mistake value for pure performance; Nvidia has the edge when it comes to technology, architecture, and much smoother drivers, which is exactly why they command a higher price tag. Please, let's not conflate the two. You came here asking for advice, so there's no need to lecture me—I've owned both AMD and Nvidia hardware, so I know the landscape pretty well. And just because the Nvidia GTX 970 only has "just" 3.5GB of VRAM doesn't mean it's a bad card, nor does it mean nobody wants to buy it anymore. It’s still plenty capable for 1080p gaming—and honestly, it can handle higher resolutions too—it just isn't meant for 4K. By the way, what kind of CPUs are we looking at now? You're pivoting to processors out of nowhere...