Confused about which GPU to buy ?

[tabascosauz]

Nvidia do not have the ram issue because they have the gpu, cuda and physx. Amd only have a gpu and the CPU for Physx this is why AMD need more ram for games over Nvidia cards.... thats why i said 6gig as most top games need 4gig in MAX settings and newer games will be pulling 6.0 to 6.5 gig ram and will grow over the next few years.

Bud, I have no idea what you are talking about. CUDA and PhysX have nothing to do with VRAM. You're a little misinformed. Is this one of the reasons why you think that HD 7750 CF adds up to 4GB of VRAM?

By that logic, my 280X shouldn't be able to run anything at all. It does GTA V at near-max settings w/ AA with a comfortable 60+ FPS and with more than 500MB of free VRAM left, thank you.

 

[skippy258]

Bud, I have no idea what you are talking about. CUDA and PhysX have nothing to do with VRAM. You're a little misinformed. Is this one of the reasons why you think that HD 7750 CF adds up to 4GB of VRAM?

By that logic, my 280X shouldn't be able to run anything at all. It does GTA V at near-max settings w/ AA with a comfortable 60+ FPS and with more than 500MB of free VRAM left, thank you.

CUDA handles threads the cpu dose because cuda has more threads, NVIDIA CUDA-enabled GPUs accelerate NVIDIA PhysX to deliver even more physics processing power more than a CPU this is why you shee lower cpu clocks on systems with nvidia cards.

Also just like to point out my crossfire HD7750 has 4 gb in Each card, not 2gig x2 =4 like your saying... be nice if you knew what you were on about before attacking people.
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/b1996/powercolor-hd-7750-4-gb-ddr3.html

 

[tabascosauz]

CUDA handles threads the cpu dose because cuda has more threads, NVIDIA CUDA-enabled GPUs accelerate NVIDIA PhysX to deliver even more physics processing power more than a CPU this is why you shee lower cpu clocks on systems with nvidia cards.

Also just like to point out my crossfire HD7750 has 4 gb in Each card, not 2gig x2 =4 like your saying... be nice if you knew what you were on about before attacking people.
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/b1996/powercolor-hd-7750-4-gb-ddr3.html

My bad. I didn't know there was a DDR3 7750 with that much VRAM.

That tidbit on CUDA sounds a little sketchy though. I don't think that trying to steer OP towards a card with 8GB of VRAM is going to help his performance or his wallet.

 

[skippy258]

My bad. I didn't know there was a DDR3 7750 with that much VRAM.

That tidbit on CUDA sounds a little sketchy though. I don't think that trying to steer OP towards a card with 8GB of VRAM is going to help his performance or his wallet.

NP , i'm not trying to steer other people into buying it in the end of the day it's his choice but me, I stick with AMD as most boards support crossfire but a lot can not handle sli my board is only able to crossfire 3 cards on 2.0 @16 x 3 so I plan to add to my system more R9 390's later on as i think them cards will be getting close to maxing out a 2.0 port but I do have 32 cores and 32 threads in this system so this should crunch throw games np and I could get a gtx 620 or alike just for physx if i want to play other games that need that support.

 

[blabla21]

Last call before deciding guys,

Its either Sapphire 390 Nitro and MSI GTX 980 Ti Gaming

Sapphire 390 Nitro
Pros:
-Cheap
-Will enable me my Freesync support on my monitor
-Can run modern games (while not all) on Ultra with 50+FPS
-Has 8 GB VRAM (altough not that useful since I dont run it at 4K for modern games)

Cons:
-Will get old soon (and by old I mean wont be able to keep up with new games at ultra Settings @ 1440p at 60+ FPS)
-Going with this one, I would only use it as a placeholder Until Pascal or Arctic Islands arrive , and even then they probably will come out at Q4 2016 which is very long , not to mention they might be even more EXPENSIVE than the GTX 980 Ti here, but my knowledge is that transitioning to 16/14nm node is actually a cheaper process and hopefully they would be atleast 550 or 650 $ (and by that I mean high end like GTX 1080 like GTX 980 Ti).
-Crossfiring wont be an option for my 650 W Supernova G2
-NVIDIA S!@#Works (or any NVIDIA optimized games) will sabotage my performance on 390 and I would be forced to reduce quality of games to run it at 60+ FPS
-Freesync is only at 35-90Hz range

MSI GTX 980 Ti Gaming
Pros:
-Ultra powerful card
-Will last me for a few years running games at max settings @1440p 60+ FPS
-Wont be needing to replace it atleast minimum 3 years
-Will benefit more from Gameworks

Cons
-Expensive
-Will feel regret if Pascal would be cheaper but more powerful than this one
-Would have to game alot to feel my moneys worth if I buy it

Any additional Pros and Cons for these 2 GPU's are welcome from you guys.

 

[skippy258]

If you want to jump to the stats go to around 6 min in, on this review.

 

[blabla21]

I never asked to statistics as I already red them, and I wasn't comparing it to GTX 970.

 

[skippy258]

I never asked to statistics as I already red them, and I wasn't comparing it to GTX 970.

Well at the end of the day if the statistics do not add up and give you the answer.... then go spin a bottle and see where it lands. I think we have all given our opinion on this and for me I would of made my mind up long ago.

 

[blabla21]

I want to hear other people opinions on the 390 and GTX 980 Ti for both pros and cons of them , and is the waiting game worth it for Arctic Islands/Pascal.

 

[GhostRyder]

Last call before deciding guys,

Its either Sapphire 390 Nitro and MSI GTX 980 Ti Gaming

Sapphire 390 Nitro
Pros:
-Cheap
-Will enable me my Freesync support on my monitor
-Can run modern games (while not all) on Ultra with 50+FPS
-Has 8 GB VRAM (altough not that useful since I dont run it at 4K for modern games)

Cons:
-Will get old soon (and by old I mean wont be able to keep up with new games at ultra Settings @ 1440p at 60+ FPS)
-Going with this one, I would only use it as a placeholder Until Pascal or Arctic Islands arrive , and even then they probably will come out at Q4 2016 which is very long , not to mention they might be even more EXPENSIVE than the GTX 980 Ti here, but my knowledge is that transitioning to 16/14nm node is actually a cheaper process and hopefully they would be atleast 550 or 650 $ (and by that I mean high end like GTX 1080 like GTX 980 Ti).
-Crossfiring wont be an option for my 650 W Supernova G2
-NVIDIA S!@#Works (or any NVIDIA optimized games) will sabotage my performance on 390 and I would be forced to reduce quality of games to run it at 60+ FPS
-Freesync is only at 35-90Hz range

MSI GTX 980 Ti Gaming
Pros:
-Ultra powerful card
-Will last me for a few years running games at max settings @1440p 60+ FPS
-Wont be needing to replace it atleast minimum 3 years
-Will benefit more from Gameworks

Cons
-Expensive
-Will feel regret if Pascal would be cheaper but more powerful than this one
-Would have to game alot to feel my moneys worth if I buy it

Any additional Pros and Cons for these 2 GPU's are welcome from you guys.

One thing I will mention is that this generation overall has not really introduced a huge performance gap comparative to years past for most of the series. Even the 980ti while a very powerful card is not that big a leap from its predecessor the GTX 780ti (At least without overclocking) IMHO. While I will say it you would get a little more powerful of a GPU with the GTX 980ti, for the price difference your not going to get an extreme amount of performance and it might be better to wait for the next generation before making a huge purchase. With the R9 390 and the Freesync at the lower levels (Down to 35) your just going to feel the game acting like its more stable (From my experience with G-Sync and Freesync compared to without it) which will not feel as much like the FPS is as low as it maybe. Even with the GTX 980ti, your not going to keep the 1440p 144hz very stable (Well actually with many of your games both will handle them pretty well at that range, I am mostly referring to games like the Witcher 3).

With your hesitation to spend the extra, I still say the R9 390 would be a better buy for you for the money savings and for the Freesync mixed in to help you in the lower ranges (Which you will see no matter what cards you have, I have 3 R9 290X's overclocked on a 5930K and I still dip to the 90's on them using the Acer Freesync 1440p 144hz monitor except on some games like League of Legends, StarCraft 2, and a few others). As far as Gameworks go, just remember that those games are far and few between and not really worth fretting over much even if I do not like that they are essentially there to sabotage performance. I play Withcer 3 on Ultra at 4K (I don't use the Freesync Monitor all the time) and its just fine with Hairworks off to a point its quite smooth now.

 

[blabla21]

Thanks Ghost,I will see to extending the waiting game a little bit more for Pascal and Arctic Islands.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I'm not convince a 300 series AMD GPU really makes sense for 1440p. W1zzard's benches show a 390 being only 10% faster than a 290 at 1440p. Plus if you DO end up using Freesync, the percentage margin will be even less because it typically works in FPS ranges more like 35-90.

I say go with more raw GPU power and don't buy into thinking you need a whole 8GB VRAM for 1440. A 290x will nearly match a 390 @ 1440, and is your most affordable option. You may even consider a 970 though depending on price.

I would assume due to your pricing and the 970's tendency to effectively cap at 3.5GB in some games though, the 290x would probably be better for you overall, because it's almost identical in overall performance and wouldn't VRAM cap in those few games the 970 struggles with.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/R9_390_PCS_Plus/30.html

 

[blabla21]

Your right, now im even more confused, I domt know should I even stay with my HD6850.

 

[tabascosauz]

Why are you confused? Half of the people here have continuously reaffirmed the same belief that the R9 290X, if you can find one, offers the best value for you. Since you keep finding yourself obsessed with the what-ifs of performance in the near future, going with a 290X provides you with plenty of power and some cash for your next upgrade, should you feel that the 290X is inadequate.

The only reasons for which I would consider a GTX 970 over a 290X would be:

1) need for a short length card in a case such as the SG08 that I have, if I were to get a longer PSU than my current one

2) need for power efficiency because one has a CX5/600M.

 

[blabla21]

I decided also that I wont use freesync even if I do get a AMD card, the reason is because it is very limiting with 35-90Hz since the games I play are probably gonna be 100+FPS and because according to reviews there is a Input lag a 16ms.

 

[tabascosauz]

I decided also that I wont use freesync even if I do get a AMD card, the reason is because it is very limiting with 35-90Hz since the games I play are probably gonna be 100+FPS and because according to reviews there is a Input lag a 16ms.

I thought you already decided that when you said that you bought the monitor for its resolution, not for freesync.

It's all on you; we've all pitched in but the decision is down to you. I don't think we can help you resolve your uncertainty over the future. You worry too much about a product that we barely know anything about.

 

[RealNeil]

I decided also that I wont use freesync even if I do get a AMD card, the reason is because it is very limiting with 35-90Hz since the games I play are probably gonna be 100+FPS and because according to reviews there is a Input lag a 16ms.

If I were to have that monitor and a R9-390X GPU, you couldn't ~keep~ me from trying Freesync out just to see how it works.

If Freesync is not a vast improvement over No-Freesync, why are they bothering with it?

Smooth 90Hz performance without stutter is something people have been wanting for a long time, but you do what you want to.
I'm not going to input here any more.

 

[GhostRyder]

I decided also that I wont use freesync even if I do get a AMD card, the reason is because it is very limiting with 35-90Hz since the games I play are probably gonna be 100+FPS and because according to reviews there is a Input lag a 16ms.

Well remember even if you have your settings at 144hz you can still use the Freesync benefit when it hits into its range as it will not hurt the system to have it on. As for the input lag, I have heard people say multiple things about the techs between them and what happens when they are off and on. From my perspective it does not hurt anything and honestly makes the experience at those higher refreshes better.

But back on subject, ignoring that comparing all the prices and GPU's it maybe better for your to grab the R9 390 still just for the price difference and for the fact you are interested in the next generation cards. It may be better because supposedly the next series of cards is going to be on a new node which will probably be a bigger jump than this generation and will be more of a value if you want to invest next round. Its one of the big reasons I do not upgrade this round!

 

[blabla21]

Okay but which one 390 vs R9 290X?

 

[GhostRyder]

Okay but which one 390 vs R9 290X?

Which ever you can get for cheaper.

 

[yogurt_21]

290X should be cheaper, come with a bit more raw HP (2816 vs 2560 stream processors, 176 vs 160 tmu's, etc) the same core clock with just slightly slower memory clock (something that might be made up for with overclocking), and no wasted memory. As has always been the case extra memory is only beneficial if you have the power to drive it. 8GB will be beneficial to those who crossfire but not to those who don't.

Think of it this way if you were to have a solar array with a battery backup system and you already had the perfect amount of storage to match your solar output, would doubling your storage give you any benefit? No because your panels can't provide enough power to fill those batteries on top of your usage resulting in undercharging which reduces the life of the batteries. While not using the full 8GB won't reduce the life of the card's memory (even if it did we change cards too often for it to matter); the problem is that any situation that requires 8GB of vram will be too much for a 390's gpu to handle anyways forcing you to reduce details to make the game playable resulting in vram usage going back down to below 4GB again. Again in crossfire this isn't the case as effective memory for the crossfire array is always that of a single card since both SLI and Crossfire are time shares rather than load shares. (ie each card alternates frames making each produce the same amount of textures as a single card but each only having to do every other frame)

go with the 290X