GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

Timothy Kim60 said:Why bother with the 290 x when you could just grab a 290 for $25 right now? There’s basically zero difference between those two GPUs. The 290 x isn't worth the extra cash.

+1
Paying more for a measly 2-5% bump in performance makes no sense. If you're looking at what a 290 x costs, you might as well just pick up a gtx 970 instead.

Robert Rodriguez2 said:+1
Is that measly 2-5% performance bump actually worth jumping from the R9 290 to the R9 290 x? Honestly, I don't think so. For the extra cash you'd be throwing away, you can already find an R9 290 x sitting on a shelf right next to a gtx 970. It just doesn't make sense.

Based on what users are reporting, you can often overclock a standard R9 290 x enough to actually outperform an R9 290 Tri-x.

A quick 50 MHz overclock on the GPU easily covers that entire gap.
Look at it this way: if you’re clocking an R9 290 x at 1150MHz and an R9 290 Tri-x at 1100MHz, you've essentially hit the sweet spot.

So, it looks like we're back to the same old story: it’s all just a total lottery when it comes to GPU silicon.

Before I even touched that Asusica (290X), I had the chance to test out an R9 290 Tri-x. That card was a breeze to push to 1200MHz, requiring only some minor voltage adjustments to stay stable.

That would imply the R9 290 x was actually faster than this current R9 290 x, since its clock speed is already sitting just north of 1100MHz. It reminds me exactly of my old HD7950; I had that thing overclocked to over 1200MHz, and it absolutely smoked an HD7970.

I'm of the same opinion—factory overclocked models are generally the smarter buy. The price premium rarely reflects the actual performance gap, and once you start pushing the limits yourself, things change. Depending on how lucky you get with the silicon lottery and where that specific GPU hits its ceiling, the overclocked card can actually end up pulling ahead.

crimsonstag84 said:R9 390 is $967

In this link $1600.

It feels a bit weird that one shop has it for nearly $1667 while another has it for 2900, and they're the exact same card? 🤔

Wanna buy me a brick for $1667? 😬

https://www.newegg.com/amd-ati-gpu/3...hics-card.html (this item is currently sold out 😕 )

It honestly surprises me that Gigabyte opted for a dual fan setup on a card like this instead of going with their 3x Windforce design. 🤷

http://www.bestbuy.com/detalji_prover...94CE92CCB.aspx

Best Buy posted it online, but it won't be in stock for a few days. crimsonstag84 is spot on—prices are always inflated right at launch. This could hit $900 pretty quickly, or who knows, maybe even $2,500 in a few months... Though, let's be real, those 8GB aren't doing much good for the average user anyway.

Gary Anderson38 said:Check out this link $1600.

Now I’m starting to find it a bit surreal—how can one retailer be charging nearly $1667 while a third shop has the exact same card sitting at 2900? Does that even make sense? 🤔

Honestly, the pricing logic at these local online retailers is completely nonsensical. Personally, I don't even bother looking past Amazon; even after factoring in shipping costs, it usually ends up being a better deal than anything I find domestically. For instance, I just spotted a 390 over there for $907, shipping included. 😁

Timothy Kim60 said:The headquarters just posted the info online, though the actual shipment should be arriving in a few days. I think crimsonstag84 has a point here; prices tend to be inflated right out of the gate, and we might see them plummet on $900 pretty quickly—who knows, maybe they’ll hit the $2500 mark in a month or so? My only gripe is that most average users won't find much use for that 8GB of VRAM in their everyday tasks.

But does owning a 4K monitor and playing > really not qualify someone as an average user? It's true that > is more of an outlier than the norm, but am I wrong to assume that manufacturers are already aggressively chasing a 4K-heavy future?

I’d honestly rather pay $33 a bit more at Micro Center (honestly, $2,800 is $33 peanuts) just to get that two-year warranty. It saves you the headache of dealing with Best Buy if something breaks, plus you aren't stuck paying $20-$30 for shipping
.

Why wouldn't someone with a 4K monitor and GTA V count as an average user?

A 4K monitor? No way that's an average user. Besides, if you look at the reviews for the 290 x, it's clear that even at 4K, there's basically no difference between the 4GB and 8GB versions in most games; in some smaller

Bradley Lewis59 said:Online retailers around here can be a bit unpredictable, honestly. I usually don't bother looking anywhere else besides Amazon; even when you factor in an extra $25 or $30 for shipping, it still ends up being a much better deal than buying locally. I actually just spotted one there for only $390. $907It arrived right at my doorstep, delivered straight to me. 😁

Personally, I’ve always been the type who prefers having something tangible in my hands at the end of the day. There is just a certain level of satisfaction that comes with being able to walk into a local shop, pick up an item, and bring it home right then and there. If it means I can head down to the nearest Target or Best Buy and actually hold the product, I don't mind paying a bit extra to make that happen; honestly, I wouldn't hesitate to drop $200 on something if it meant avoiding the wait for a delivery.$100 I’ve been thinking quite a bit about how much more we could achieve if we simply leaned into the momentum we’ve built lately. It honestly feels like we are standing on the precipice of something truly significant, and I can't help but feel a sense of genuine excitement about where this is all heading. I remember back when I first started working in my field, everything felt so fragmented and disconnected, but seeing this level of cohesion now is just wonderful. There is so much more potential waiting to be tapped if we stay focused. 😁

Timothy Kim60 said:I’d honestly rather pay $33 a bit more at Micro Center (let’s be real, a difference of 2800 x is basically $33 nothing) just to ensure I get at least a two-year warranty; that way, if I actually have to file a claim, I don't have to deal with some random local shop's excuses or shell out another $30 for shipping costs.

You make a fair point—if the price gap is that small, there's really no reason to sweat it, but if you had your heart set on something like an R9 295X2, you might have found it for $333 cheaper there than anywhere else in the US.

Timothy Kim60 said:I honestly wouldn't mind paying $33 a bit extra at Micro Center (because let's be real, $2,800 is basically $33 peanuts) just to have that peace of mind, especially since you get a solid two-year warranty through them. It saves me from dealing with any headaches from a third-party vendor or having to shell out an extra $30 for shipping if I need to file a claim.

That being said, I’m definitely planning on buying from him when the time comes, and I’ll make sure to pay him a little extra $33 as a thank you for being so accommodating; he actually shipped my order out on a Saturday because I was in a huge rush to get an old graphics card back in action for a 😵 WoT tournament that evening.

Bradley Lewis59 said:You make a fair point—there’s really no reason to pay that much extra. But if you had your heart set on something like an R9 295X2, you could have snagged one there for $333 less than you’d find at any retailer in the US.

I recall Uzi picking up an HD7990 for about $1000 cheaper than the next best option available in the States.🤣

Besides, shopping there is basically like ordering from Germany (since we don't have local importers, everything comes in from Italy, France, or Germany anyway). The prices are nearly identical; the main difference is just that our sales tax is higher than theirs. Plus, if you need to file a warranty claim, you deal with Uzi instead of shipping stuff across Europe.

X-Plosiv

On top of that, everyone I know who has used that shop has had nothing but great experiences. You aren't alone in thinking highly of them. I haven't pulled the trigger on a purchase there myself yet, though.

Timothy Kim60 said:A 4K monitor? Of course the average Joe isn't exactly running that setup. Besides, if you actually bother to look at the reviews for the 290X, it becomes pretty obvious that even at 4K, there isn't much of a difference between the 4GB and 8GB versions in most titles—though in a few niche cases, things might change.

Exactly, I’m rambling here too, aren't I? You can count 4K gaming monitors on one hand, let alone those absolute monstrosities that push 144 Hz. As for GTA specifically, my mistake—that card barely scrapes by with 4GB at 4K resolution; I mistakenly thought it was already hitting its limits on 1080p or 1440p displays.

You can certainly push 4GB of VRAM into 4K gaming if you have the overhead, but let’s be clear: having more memory doesn't necessarily guarantee better performance when comparing a 4GB card to an 8GB card.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...-tested-2.html

Comparing the 290X at 4GB versus 8GB in 4K shows negligible differences, except in a handful of specific titles.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...gb,3977-3.html

If you aren't even running a 4K monitor, those extra 4 gigs are essentially useless to you.

Timothy Kim60 said:I can push 4GB of assets at 4K if there’s enough headroom—though, honestly, that shouldn't necessarily dictate the final performance delta when comparing a 4GB card to an 8GB one. It isn't an issue as long as the memory allocation is straightforward; all this VRAM hysteria really started because of the GTX 970, where crossing that 3.5GB threshold caused a massive bandwidth collapse once you hit the second pool of memory. But even then, testing showed it wasn't actually a dealbreaker, with performance dips maxing out at around 6% compared to other standard 4GB cards.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...-tested-2.html

Comparing the 290X with 4GB versus 8GB at 4K shows negligible differences:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...gb,3977-3.html

If you aren't rocking a 4K monitor, does anyone actually care about those extra 4 gigs?

Well, that seems pretty obvious, isn't it? From what I've seen, almost no modern game actually exceeds that limit yet. What I am genuinely curious about—and something that won't happen overnight, mind you—is what happens when a developer finally releases a title that immediately gobbles up 6 or 7 GB of VRAM? If I'm sitting there with a card that only has 4GB, or heaven forbid, just 2GB, what's the actual user experience? Are we looking at noticeably slower texture loading? Constant stuttering? Or will we just be greeted by that lovely "Not enough video memory" error message telling us to go out and spend more money on a better GPU?

It’s just lower FPS and some stuttering—standard behavior when your hardware isn't quite beefy enough to handle specific settings or high-end gameplay. Nothing out of the ordinary. If I recall correctly, back when Watch Dogs launched, the requirements suggested you needed at least 3GB of VRAM to even touch the Ultra settings. I can't remember if it actually let you toggle them on or just recommended it, but honestly? Just dial the settings down and call it a day. If you're running a standard 1080p monitor, there's really no reason to stress about it sucking up all your resources.

Thanks for the tips,
ended up grabbing the XFX 7870..
but this one looks a bit different than the ones in the photos—it’s got 2x92mm fans instead of the usual 2x80mm.

same specs listed here
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/...n-pin-pin.html

As far as I recall, back here in the States, XFX and Sapphire offered those Tahiti 7870 cards with just a single fan for a very brief window.

XFX used to run different cooling setups back then—you had the single fan models, the dual fan versions, and then the Black Edition series. Yours looks exactly like one of those Black Editions.🤷

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/463...iew/index.html

http://i.nextmedia.com.au/Galleries/...xfx-7950-3.jpg

The box doesn't say Black Edition, just "Double Dissipation."
So it's the standard version since they both use DD anyway.

Black Edition uses 80mm fans, but mine are 92mm.
And the heatsink is from the R7800 series, not the R7870...
The BE has 1200 shaders, while this one has 1536.
Basically, the BE is Pitcairn, and this is Tahiti.
Gonna pull up GPU-Z in a bit to double-check.

Maybe they realized they messed up the original heatsink design and just swapped in one from the 7900 series.

Take a look at the other photo above. Since the Tahiti chip is essentially the same architecture used in the 7950 and 7970, they likely just swapped in the cooler and fans from those models for this XFX dual-fan 7870 version. Either way, more cooling surface area is always a win.

edit:

http://linustechtips.com/main/galler...0-xttahiti-le/

Yeah, I'm with you there... this isn't even a standard 7870 series card...

It looks identical to the one in this last photo—no XFX logo sitting in the middle either..

Plus, my die size looks smaller compared to that top-down shot of the hardware
+ dx 11.2
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/b17...d-hd-7870.html