GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

Graphics cards are averaging right around here; given the power supply situation, there's absolutely no reason for them to be hitting 390.

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-39...eForce-GTX-970

Ethan Vaughn27 said:http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-39...eForce-GTX-970

This comparison is pretty much useless. I guess sites like GPUBoss, the presidential debate, and stuff like that are just nonsense when it comes to comparing hardware.

Yeah, those numbers are just being thrown around to fill space. If you're looking for a card that actually holds up for the future, I’d say go with AMD—mostly because that 8GB of VRAM is a lifesaver. If you eventually decide to bump up your resolution from what you're playing at now, you won't be hitting a wall immediately. Honestly, when you look at the actual performance, the cards are pretty much neck and neck anyway...

He’ll probably just stick with the GTX 970 for now, mostly because he doesn't want to deal with the headache of swapping out his power supply right this second...

Ethan Vaughn27 said:http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-39...eForce-GTX-970

- we aren't talking about the 390X here
- you can't just judge raw GPU power based on technical specs alone when you're comparing different architecturesclick

Hey everyone,

I’m looking to pick up a new graphics card, but honestly, I don't know enough about this stuff to feel confident, so I could really use some help from you guys.

It looks like my current card kicked the bucket during a thunderstorm. When I power on the PC, everything starts up fine—lights go on, fans spin—but nothing shows up on the monitor. After about 30 seconds, the whole thing just resets itself, and it keeps doing that loop over and over. I popped the case open, pulled out the GPU, and plugged the monitor into the integrated graphics instead; since then, everything works normally. I ran MemTest, and the RAM is solid. I also ran an HDD scan, and that came back clean too.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but is it actually possible that the card is perfectly fine and the PCI-E slot itself died, or is it a safe bet that the card is the culprit?

Anyway, up until now, I’ve been running an ATI RADEON HD 4670 1GB GDDR3. I don't need anything fancy because I basically only play League of Legends and the occasional Call of Duty 2, so there's zero reason for me to drop a ton of cash here. Just looking for something in that same ballpark—something cheap.

I actually sent an email over to Best Buy to see what they’d recommend, and they pointed me toward this: http://www.bestbuy.com/?naziv=graficka-kartica-pci-e-gainward-geforce-gt-740-1gb-ddr3-d-sub-dvi-hdmi&option=artikl&id_artikl=051.803.959

What do you all think? Are there better options for that kind of money? Or maybe even something even cheaper that performs just as well as my old one?

If everything runs smoothly without the graphics card, then that’s almost certainly your culprit. A faulty PCIe slot is less likely, but the smartest move is to test someone else's GPU. That way, you can put a real load on the system and see if the power supply holds up—which is also a major suspect given those random restarts and the lightning damage you dealt with.

Regarding the GPU itself: honestly, buying anything brand new for under $600-$233 is basically throwing money down the drain (you get abysmal performance for such a high price tag). Some might even say you shouldn't touch anything under $1000-$400, but if you absolutely insist on buying new within that budget, you should look for a card with DDR5 memory. It'll be faster than the old Linkage cards and a massive step up from what you have now, plus it won't pull much power. http://www.newegg.com/p/graphics-cards/r7-250-1gd5/

I read some nonsense online about running a bunch of useless stress tests on my PC and just letting it run all day to check if the power supply holds up. I’m not sure how much scientific truth there actually is to that, but everything seems fine so far. I even hopped on a game today—nothing heavy by any standard, obviously—but yeah, things seem to be holding steady.

As for the graphics card, honestly, I don't really care whether upgrading makes sense financially or not. It’s not that I’m broke, but why would I buy something I don't actually need? I don't play modern AAA titles and I have zero plans to start. For the two games I actually stick to, the last card I had was more than enough.

If I could just pull the trigger right now, I'd love to find something similar for maybe $400-$167. I know DDR5 is supposedly twice as good (if my memory serves me right) compared to DDR3, but I just don't need that kind of power, nor do I see a reason I'd ever need it anytime soon. Spending an extra $700-$267 would basically be throwing money down the drain, if you catch my drift.

Anyway, thanks for the reply. I think I'll just hunt down a cheap GPU and pop it in just to make sure that slot isn't dead.

Personally, I think $23 the R7 250 is probably the better call here... plus, you'd still have an extra year of warranty left.

Look, if budget isn't really an issue for you, why wouldn't you just grab a more powerful GPU for an extra 50$23? Honestly, that one comes with an additional year of warranty, which is huge—it doesn't make sense to pass that up just to save a few bucks (plus, shipping should only run you about $13). Besides, this card ought to perform right in line with or even better than the 4670, at least if my math is right.

Honestly, if we're talking about a difference of only like $7 or $8, I’d definitely go with the first one you suggested. Between the one Best Buy recommended and the one you pointed out, there's really no contest. It's obvious which way I'm leaning.

That second option you mentioned would be plenty for me. There's a $200-$100 gap between that and the previous one, and since it beats my old card, that's pretty much all I care about. Maybe I'm being thick here, but I don't actually need anything more powerful than what I've been running until now. That's why I'm not looking to blow extra cash right now.

If my situation changes down the road, then maybe I'll look into building an entirely new rig with a much beefier setup.

Edit: Could you just give me a quick breakdown of how that second one compares to the one Best Buy suggested? It looks like the DDR5 version is cheaper by about $33.

It’s a significantly weaker chip—it just doesn't have nearly enough CUDA cores, TMUs, or ROPs to keep up. Plus, you're stuck with a 64-bit bus, which is going to be a real headache if you try playing anything at 1680x1050 or higher. I guess the faster memory helps a bit, but it probably won't be enough to make up for those fundamental weaknesses.

Timothy Kim60 said:- we aren't talking about the 390X
- you can't just judge raw GPU power based on technical specs when you're comparing different architectures click

Who said I was using tech specs for the comparison? I haven't lost my mind quite yet. 😁

crimsonstag84 said:This comparison is completely useless. Sites like TechCrunch, presidential debate forums, and similar ones are generally garbage for component comparisons.

The R9 390 will likely pull higher FPS at higher resolutions (UHD), probably due to that 8GB buffer, whereas the GTX 970 will perform better at 1080p. Plus, Nvidia tends to optimize their drivers more effectively. It’s smarter to go with the GTX 970; most people aren't gaming on a UHD monitor anyway, and they won't have to overhaul their entire power supply to run it.

Ethan Vaughn27 said:The R9 390 will probably pull more FPS at higher resolutions (UHD) since it has 8GB of VRAM, whereas the GTX 970 might actually perform better at 1080p. Plus, Nvidia tends to be pretty good about optimizing their drivers, so grabbing the GTX 970 seems like the smarter move if they aren't planning on playing in UHD anyway—and they won't need to swap out their power supply either.

But where does it actually say that on those sites you linked? Nowhere. That’s why I responded the way I did; other people are going to look at those links and jump to the wrong conclusions.

What you're saying is mostly right, I guess.

Ethan Vaughn27 said:the R9 390 will likely pull higher FPS at higher resolutions (UHD), mostly because of that 8GB buffer.

Does anyone actually believe RAM is a deciding factor these days? It’s almost irrelevant, considering how few games even break the 4GB barrier at 4K resolution. At the end of the day, isn't raw CPU power what really carries the weight?

So, to wrap this whole thing up, is there any way I can be 100% certain that this R7 250 card Timothy Kim60 handed over is actually going to work in my rig? Or am I just asking for trouble unless I double-check other stuff first, like the power supply or the CPU?

It pulls about 55W, so pretty much any power supply should handle it... I guess as long as you actually have an AGP slot available, it'll work 😁

Alright, I'll just grab that one then. No point in overcomplicating things at this stage. 😁

Since we're on the subject, I wanted to pick your brain. It looks like my network card fried right next to the GPU and modem. I don't even know what happened, but apparently, there was some massive surge or something—I heard stories about guys literally walking door-to-door in their neighborhoods handing out new modems because everything got toasted. Clearly, I'm not the only one hit by this. 🙂

What should I actually be looking for when picking out a new network card? Got any specific recommendations from that same site so I can just bundle it all together and order tomorrow?

crimsonstag84 said:And where exactly does it say that on those sites you linked? It doesn't. That’s why I answered the way I did—because other people are going to click those links and walk away with the wrong idea.

What you're saying is more or less correct.

No, it isn't on those pages. I went back to check the benchmark, and the R9 390 could pull up to 15fps more in UHD resolution, whereas the GTX 970 had better FPS at 1920x1080.

I'm looking at it right now; I posted that TechCrunch link thinking there would be a benchmark down at the bottom, but there isn't. It just shows speed comparisons and other specs. And why is what was said above mostly true? Doesn't Nvidia optimize their drivers more than AMD does?