Best single card setup

[Champ]

The difference in price especially for free vs g with ips is astounding. I want to imagine free sync is more versatile for the fact that it's software based and not a module that'll eventually be outta date.

 

[GhostRyder]

Also GTX 980 ti has adaptive V-Sync , not only G-Sync

Umm...Ok but that's kinda pointless because that is completely different and not really worthwhile when were talking about G-Sync. Adaptive sync is just a better V-Sync that causes less lag but G-Sync (And Freesync) completely eliminate the lag.

The difference in price especially for free vs g with ips is astounding. I want to imagine free sync is more versatile for the fact that it's software based and not a module that'll eventually be outta date.

Its still a system similar to the G-Sync system, its just an updated scaler in the monitor that handles it instead of a separate module made by Nvidia. That is why were seeing a lot more Adaptive Sync/Freesync monitors than G-Sync now.

 

[cdawall]

For 1440P go 980ti for 2160P go fury, or wait for pascal your choice.

 

[Champ]

So I brought the TN panel freesync. I've also learnt the free sync and crossfire can coexist. Would I be foolish to buy 2 290Xs or a 295x2? I had two 290s before and they performed well.

 

[Kanan]

So I brought the TN panel freesync. I've also learnt the free sync and crossfire can coexist. Would I be foolish to buy 2 290Xs or a 295x2? I had two 290s before and they performed well.

Well you'd not be foolish, but better buy 390s, they have 8 GB ram, that helps these GPUs greatly to be good a few years longer (at higher resolutions or even 1080p after some time).

 

[GhostRyder]

So I brought the TN panel freesync. I've also learnt the free sync and crossfire can coexist. Would I be foolish to buy 2 290Xs or a 295x2? I had two 290s before and they performed well.

Well you'd not be foolish, but better buy 390s, they have 8 GB ram, that helps these GPUs greatly to be good a few years longer (at higher resolutions or even 1080p after some time).

Yea at this point if you want to do that and buy two new GPU's I would get the R9 390 or 390X pair with 8gb. Better for the long run.

Part of the reason I waited on buying a Freesync panel originally was until I saw CFX support (Well I didn't technically buy this one). It works great honestly.

 

[RejZoR]

Well, actually the best single card (but not single GPU) at the moment is R9 295X2. If you can get it anywhere, it pisses all over Fury X and GTX 980Ti for like half the price. It is the same chip as R9-300 series so it has everything those have. But if you want modern versions, GTX980Ti or Fury X. Each has its pros and cons, but realistically, you can't go wrong with either. They are both good cards.

 

[trog100]

interesting this i think.. the system is being looked at in total including a high end monitor..

it looks like the red team is gonna win because free-sync is much cheaper than g-sync..

one other factor i recon that needs considering is power usage with these high end cards.. the green team being the winner in this respect..

the other would be driver support.. i recon the green team would win on this one..

trog

 

[Eric_Cartman]

Well you'd not be foolish, but better buy 390s, they have 8 GB ram, that helps these GPUs greatly to be good a few years longer (at higher resolutions or even 1080p after some time).

8GB is not going to help at all at any resolution below 4k, and even not really at 4k.

 

[Kanan]

8GB is not going to help at all at any resolution below 4k, and even not really at 4k.

Not true, there are enough games that have already proven otherwise. And seems you didn't read: I said a few years longer, that means I'm talking future. Your statement is simply wrong.

 

[trog100]

Not true, there are enough games that have already proven otherwise. And seems you didn't read: I said a few years longer, that means I'm talking future. Your statement is simply wrong.

care to list these games that prove otherwise.. as for the future that is still an unknown and pure speculation..

i think the common belief is that any future game that may need extra memory wont be that playable on a 390 type card anyway.. 8 gig is simply a marketing ploy.. so is 4 gig on some of the bottom end cards.. sounds good but of no real use..

but its all opinion and aint really worth arguing about..

trog

 

[Kanan]

care to list these games that prove otherwise.. as for the future that is still an unknown and pure speculation..

i think the common belief is that any future game that may need extra memory wont be that playable on a 390 type card anyway.. 8 gig is simply a marketing ploy.. so is 4 gig on some of the bottom end cards.. sounds good but of no real use..

but its all opinion and aint really worth arguing about..

trog

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mitte...pecials/Hands-on-Test-Ultra-Texturen-1137689/

Rise of the Tomb Raider profits from more Vram (less frame variation in valley or canion).

It's not unknown and "pure speculation". It's a fact by now that games need more Vram over time, so it's safe to say 4 GB will be outdated soon for 1440p/4K and will over time just be good enough for 1080p. 2 GB Vram is already not enough for 1080p, which just wasn't the case before (why nobody should buy GTX 960 or 380 with 2 GB, unless you want frame variations - and soon real problems).

I think the Hawaii GPU is good on it's own (1x) for a few years, so the 8 GB Ram may get used. But this is talking Crossfire not Single, so that's why I recommended 390 instead of 290. Crossfire 390/290 will easily run for a few years more even on higher resolutions - but the 290 may get problems with its 4 GB Ram, the 390 less likely. So it's safe to say the Hawaii GPU -- especially in Crossfire -- and 8 GB Vram are a good match.

 

[trog100]

i played shadow of mordor with its extra texture pack download.. they did use 6 gigs of ram but the normal game certainly didnt..

tomb raider is one game i dont think i will ever play but from what i read it plays okay with lesser ram.. it uses whatever is there which in some ways does make sense..

and just maybe.. the future may bring games that can double up on crossfire ram.. now that really would make sense..

i would not argue for one second that all games could not benefit from better textures but i think its gonna be a while before 8 gigs of ram is anything more than a marketing ploy..

i would go for the 390 over the 290 but then again i might go for a pair of 4 gig nano cards instead of ether..

just for interest i have just started playing farcry primal.. that is as pretty as it gets but still quite mean on vram usage..

trog

 

[Kanan]

i played shadow of mordor with its extra texture pack download.. they did use 6 gigs of ram but the normal game certainly didnt..

tomb raider is one game i dont think i will ever play but from what i read it plays okay with lesser ram.. it uses whatever is there which in some ways does make sense..

and just maybe.. the future may bring games that can double up on crossfire ram.. now that really would make sense..

i would not argue for one second that all games could not benefit from better textures but i think its gonna be a while before 8 gigs of ram is anything more than a marketing ploy..

i would go for the 390 over the 290 but then again i might go for a pair of 4 gig nano cards instead of ether..


trog

Ofc it takes a while. For now 4 GB is almost always okay I'd say. But again, I recommended him a setup for YEARS, not only for now. And as you can see, and probably know, Vram usage is going up all the time, so I'd never recommend 4 GB cards for a crossfire (!) system, because there you have the power to drive high resolutions and settings for a long time, but if you don't have the Vram that's a problem. With 1 card only, 4 GB would be enough I guess, even for 1-2 years, because on the long run, the 290/290X/390/390X is only a 1080p card and 1080p will work with 4 GB a long time I guess.

btw. I'd gladly have a Nano or GTX 980 too, I like energy efficient cards way more.

 

[Eric_Cartman]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Mitte...pecials/Hands-on-Test-Ultra-Texturen-1137689/

Rise of the Tomb Raider profits from more Vram (less frame variation in valley or canion).

It's not unknown and "pure speculation". It's a fact by now that games need more Vram over time, so it's safe to say 4 GB will be outdated soon for 1440p/4K and will over time just be good enough for 1080p. 2 GB Vram is already not enough for 1080p, which just wasn't the case before (why nobody should buy GTX 960 or 380 with 2 GB, unless you want frame variations - and soon real problems).

I think the Hawaii GPU is good on it's own (1x) for a few years, so the 8 GB Ram may get used. But this is talking Crossfire not Single, so that's why I recommended 390 instead of 290. Crossfire 390/290 will easily run for a few years more even on higher resolutions - but the 290 may get problems with its 4 GB Ram, the 390 less likely. So it's safe to say the Hawaii GPU -- especially in Crossfire -- and 8 GB Vram are a good match.

Totally wrong.

Tomb Raider uses as much VRAM as it can, but it does not benefit from more than 4GB.

W1z explained this very nicely in his performance analysis of the game.

And Mordor only needs more VRAM when the UltraHD texture pack is used, and everyone agrees it makes no visual difference during gameplay.

It is even hard to see when you pause.

Even on the website you posted, they have a comparison.

I don't speak german so I have no idea which is the UltraHD and which is normal, and I can't tell.

In one the rock behind him looks slightly better, in the other the rocks on the ground look slightly better.

Which is which? I can't tell.

8GB is not going to make any difference in a single card setup.

Recommending a much weaker GPU just to get 8GB is completely wrong.

 

[trog100]

"And Mordor only needs more VRAM when the UltraHD texture pack is used, and everyone agrees it makes no visual difference during gameplay."

i aint part of that everyone.. he he

i would not say it improves game play but visually there is quite a difference.. its very obvious when you look closely at plant textures rocks an the like.. the normal textures should show a good enough but indistinct representation of a plant or rock.. the ultra texture pack shows detail which just isnt there with the normal textures..

so i could tell the difference but its not really noticeable during normal game play.. my comments are based on playing the game both with and without the ultra texture pack.. and the ultra textures do use up 6 gigs of vram.. at least double what the normal textures do..

games will use what the average mid range card can handle.. currently i think this is around 2 gigs.. i think it will be long time before this goes over 4 gigs..

as for 4K the problem there is lack of gpu power not vram.. i dont see that changing much in the near future ether..

trog

 

[EarthDog]

Nobody was talking about gameplay. I can't barely see a difference in that link...

 

[trog100]

i have played the game for real with the ultra textures.. there is a perceivable difference.. what you see in a link aint of much relevance now is it.. he he

the game looks better with the ultra textures end of f-king story.

to be honest i would expect most games to.. but most games dont offer the option.. which means pretty much that having over 4 gigs is of no benefit.. and above all it is an "extra" and not part of the normal game..

trog

 

[EarthDog]

he he... ok trog.

 

[rruff]

But again, I recommended him a setup for YEARS, not only for now.

Which is ridiculous, especially for someone who wants state of the art performance. You need to upgrade video cards frequently.

 

[trog100]

Which is ridiculous, especially for someone who wants state of the art performance. You need to upgrade video cards frequently.

an expensive proposition but very true..

trog

 

[Champ]

A local guy has a nano, so I'm leaning towards that. It's looks like a monster performer.

 

[trog100]

a pair of nanos would be nice.. the price is good at the moment.. one will do but two would do
better.. he he

if you do settle for just the one you have a nice future upgrade path..

i am really a green team man but the nano is a good red team choice..

trog

 

[rtwjunkie]

And Mordor only needs more VRAM when the UltraHD texture pack is used, and everyone agrees it makes no visual difference during gameplay.

Wrong. With all settings on high WITHOUT the extra texture pack i regularly exceeded 4GB. So, while 8GB may not be needed, MORE than 4 GB IS needed. Arkham Knight goes over 4GB too. And there are many others I have that it gets close. So @Kanan is right to recommend 8GB VRAM, because it will only get worse.

 

[Frick]

Wrong. With all settings on high WITHOUT the extra texture pack i regularly exceeded 4GB. So, while 8GB may not be needed, MORE than 4 GB IS needed. Arkham Knight goes over 4GB too. And there are many others I have that it gets close. So @Kanan is right to recommend 8GB VRAM, because it will only get worse.

The question is was the performance affected and would you notice if you had double the memory?