GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

That doesn't seem right—it’s way too expensive for what you get.

Just let me know your budget, how you're planning to pay, and where you'd be shopping.

2000-$833. Where should we meet? I'm based out of San Diego, so somewhere around town would be absolutely perfect.

1 x MSI Phoenix case, Midi tower, supports ATX and mATX motherboards
1 x Fortron 400W power supply, HEXA plus 400, featuring a 12cm fan
1 x Kingston 4GB (1x4GB) DDR3, 1866MHz, CL10, HyperX Fury, HX318C10F
1 x AMD Kaveri A8-Series X4 7600 Processor (3.8GHz, 4MB, 65W, FM2+) box
1 x Spire Kepler Rev.2 cooler, compatible with 1156/775/FM1, 96.5×51×125 mm, 92mm fan
1 x WD 500GB HDD, 5000AAKX, SATA 3, 16MB Cache, 7,200 rpm, 8.9 ms
1 x ASUS A88XM-E motherboard, FM2+ socket, AMD A88X chipset, DDR3, 2 expansion slots

$828 ADM (includes free assembly and shipping)

What are we looking at for the GPU? And what about the sound card?

integrated

So, is there actually any way to put together a build for that kind of cash where I'm not stuck with some crappy integrated graphics?

Current setup:

1 x ASUS H81M-R, 1150, H81 express chipset, DDR3, 2 slots
1 x Intel Celeron G1840 (2.80GHz,512KB,2MB,54 W,1150) Box,
1 x DDR3 4GB (1x4GB) Crucial, 1600MHz CL11
1 x TOSHIBA 500GB, 7200rpm, SATA 6 Gb/s, 32MB, DT01ACA050
1 x FORTRON 400W Power Supply, HEXA plus 400, 12cm fan
1 x MS PHOENIX case without PSU, Midi tower MBO: ATX, mATX
1 x ASUS R7250X-1GD5, AMD Radeon, R7250, PCIe 3.0, 1024 MB, DDR5

$841 reddit.com

It really comes down to whether it's worth the money. We're looking at a quad-core processor versus a dual-core paired with a better dedicated graphics card. Personally, I think I'd still lean toward the first option.

So, looks like the first option is the move then. But let me ask you something—would it actually make sense down the road to just bite the bullet and grab a new motherboard that comes paired with a dedicated graphics card?

Terry Palmer49 said:So I guess the first option is the way to go, but would it actually make sense to buy a new motherboard down the road that allows for a dedicated graphics card?

No, no, you've got it wrong. It’s not about the motherboard when you're talking about graphics. You can slap just about any GPU onto a newer motherboard; the real question is whether your processor can actually keep up with it. With that first option, you get a quad-core CPU that can handle much more powerful cards than this dual-core setup ever could. Plus, the integrated graphics in that first solution are more than enough to run those older titles you mentioned—you might even squeeze in a few newer ones on lower settings. Once you've saved up enough cash, just grab a dedicated card like an R9 270, plug it into this rig, and you're good to go. You'll have a solid gaming machine. 🙂

You don't actually need a new motherboard just because you're upgrading your GPU. 😁

If you decide to go with a much beefier dedicated graphics card, you just disable the integrated graphics in your BIOS, enable the new card, and plug your monitor directly into it. Once you get the drivers sorted, you're pretty much good to go.

Honestly, that integrated chip should handle those older titles just fine; they're way more capable than the integrated graphics we used to see on motherboards back in the day. I'd imagine stuff like Call of Duty 2, MW, MW2, some older strategy games, GTA: San Andreas, or League of Legends should all run at max settings without much trouble.

He might be better off sticking with an Intel Dual Core + a dedicated graphics card right out of the gate if he's looking to play those older titles and strategy games. It’ll give him more punch and much higher FPS from day one.

If his plan is to dive into newer games down the road, then grabbing the quad-core now and picking up a GPU later might be the smarter move.

Timothy Kim60 said:The bigger issue is they lied about the specs (not just the RAM), which trashed their reputation and cost them the trust of a lot of fans—that’s the real damage here.

It's a real problem.

Sure, someone buying a single card for 1080p won't feel it, at least not yet.

But this isn't a 4 GB card. What about the people who built SLI setups specifically to run Ultra HD? They got ripped off.

Just two years ago, everyone was certain you wouldn't need more than 2 GB of VRAM unless you were hitting 4K. Now, I'm playing Dying Light at 1080p and it's pulling nearly 3 GB of VRAM.

The whole argument that the GPU will bottleneck before it can even use all the memory doesn't hold water anymore either.

In Dying Light, I'm averaging 40 FPS (playable enough, could be higher depending on things), and VRAM usage is almost maxed out. Afterburner shows about 2800 MB of VRAM being used.

The latest Call of Duty pulls over 3 GB of VRAM. Since I don't have enough, instead of maxing settings, I drop them down, but my VRAM usage stays pegged at the limit anyway, and that's still at 1080p with 60 FPS.

What happens in a year when a new big title drops? Especially since NVIDIA lied about my card having 3 GB when it's actually 2.5 GB.

If they had pulled the same nonsense with that 512 MB deficit on the Nvidia 970, it wouldn't be playable. I'd be forced to lower settings despite paying for a 3 GB card.

Bottom line: that Nvidia 970 is a scam. You might not feel it right now, but wait until a year from now at standard 1080p.

If they wanted a lower price point and less performance than the 980, there were better ways to handle it.

Again, two years ago, people were saying 2 GB of VRAM would be plenty unless you went 4K... if I had waited to buy this, I would've lost my mind.
I would've demanded a refund, popped my old card back in, and waited for the R9 300 series to come out. 😁

So I get why people are pissed. They paid for one thing and got another, while NVIDIA is staying quiet. They offered refunds, but how are manufacturers like ASUS or MSI going to react? It's not their fault.

From being the best card in years to a total fraud in just a few days...

Just keep in mind that game optimization is a huge factor here—Dying Light is essentially a console port, so we’re likely looking at a patch coming down the line to actually get it running smoothly. If you check out some YouTube reviews, you can see exactly how it performs and at which resolution it starts hitting that 3.5 GB VRAM limit. I still maintain that this card is fantastic for 1080p or 1200p, but anything beyond that? Not really. Especially not for 4K, where even a card like an Intel Core i7 would struggle to keep up.

That’s what I was getting at.

When the benchmarks for the 970 and 980 first dropped, the 970 was trailing slightly behind the 980, though overclocking pretty much closed that gap.
Then there’s the price difference here in the States compared to $667.
It’s no wonder people went crazy for it; you don't see that kind of performance at that price point often.

But once people actually started using them—slapping three 970s together in SLI—they realized they needed to be able to push Full HD. Not every game at max settings, sure, but it should have worked.

Instead, they realized they'd been misled. As soon as the card hits those slow 512 MB memory segments, everything falls apart. It’s a disaster—massive FPS drops that make games unplayable.

So yeah, it makes sense why people are pissed about being cheated. If they had been upfront about what those 4 GB actually meant and how different the 970 really was from the 980, nobody would be complaining or feeling forced to buy the 980. Especially since we don't even have the hardware to truly push Ultra HD yet anyway.

At least you know what you're buying. Nvidia messed up here; they misled their customers.

Now the reason for the price gap between the 970 and 980 is obvious. None of this would be an issue if they hadn't lied. Who could blame anyone?
If they had just built it with 3 GB of RAM, it would have been a beast. No one would have complained, the price would be fair, and people wouldn't be trying to use it for these extreme setups.

And that's exactly how it came to light.

Like I said, I don't run multi-GPU setups and I play at 1080p. Even if I never need 4 GB of VRAM, I’d still be livid if I bought a "4 GB" card only to find out it can only actually use 3.5 GB effectively without being told upfront.

It comes down to principle and Nvidia's reputation.

Anyway, that's my take. I get why people are losing it and demanding refunds.

The card is still a beast for the money, though.

You hit the nail on the head. The thing is, these massive corporations think they can get away with this kind of nonsense just because they have the cash flow to cushion the blow. They don't give a damn about their reputation when the margins are that high. But listen, you can push it once, maybe even twice, but the third time you try to screw over your customers, they’ll collectively tell you to get lost, and then you’re looking at a fast track to bankruptcy. That’s why I make it a point to boycott companies like that from the jump. I’d rather play it safe and give my money to someone else.
Honestly, it doesn't bother me at all to wait—AMD is dropping their new series in a couple of months anyway. I’m perfectly fine holding out to buy from a brand that actually respects its customers and delivers better performance for less money.

I totally get where you're coming from—honestly, I’m right there with those people since I picked up a 970 myself. As long as I’m sticking to a "standard" monitor size and resolution—the kind that about 90% of gamers actually use—this card performs flawlessly. Sure, if I ever decide to make the jump to 4K, I’ll definitely need to upgrade to something more powerful, because let's face it, a 970 just isn't built for that level of intensity. So, on one hand, I see why folks with massive high-res monitors run into trouble when their VRAM hits that 3.5 GB limit and things start stuttering; but on the other hand, that doesn't really affect me. Like I mentioned before, my setup matches what most people are playing, so I haven't run into any of those issues. 😁

Quick heads-up on the new AMD graphics lineup http://wccftech.com/amd-putting-fini...r9-300-series/

Gary Anderson38 - I'm with you there. Regardless, the card is still hitting the exact performance levels seen in all the reviews and benchmarks. No reviewer seemed to catch that issue with the memory. You might be right that future titles could pose a "problem," but let's face it—by the time those games drop, this card won't be touching Ultra settings anyway, especially when it comes to MSAA.

Gary Anderson38 said:And what about the people who went out and built SLI rigs just to run everything at Ultra HD? They basically got ripped off.

glasina : Both Mantle and DX12

Both Mantle and DX12 can combine video memory

If you're running an i5 or something similar, power draw shouldn't be much of an issue with the R9 290 x on an XFX 550 W. Since some new cards are dropping in June, I'd probably just wait if I were you—especially since you've already got an R9 280 x (upgrading to either the R9 290 or a GTX 970 feels like throwing money away). And FYI, the GTX 960 is actually weaker than the R9 280 x; it’s more like an R9 280.