Best Graphics Card For Me?

[TechFan@ic]

You are right. Hitman,Tomb Raider and BF4 love AMD cards but Titanfall,Crysis 3,Far Cry 3 and Watch Dogs likes Nvidia cards.And I'm nearly sure to buy a GTX 770 TF4 card because I made a quick google seach and now I know 2 GB is enough.

Both perform the same. I would recommend the 280X over the 770 however due to the never settle bundle which allow you pick three games out of the never settle collection for free.

http://www.anandtech...forever-program

The collection incliudes : Murdered Soul Suspect, Thief, Alan Wake, Dungeon Siege 3, Hitman Absolution, Tomb Raider, Dirt 3, Darksiders ,Darksiders 2, Company of Heroes, Shogun Total War 2, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Payday 2, Just Cause 2, Titan Quest Gold Edition & Supreme Commander Gold edition + a number of indie titles.

http://images.anandt.../7951/Tiers.jpg

The 280X also has more memory and more memory bandwidth both of which you can see the benefits of right now and even more so in the near future.

In PCPer's testing both the GTX 770 and GTX 760 experienced numerous lag spikes that Ryan described as being "very noticeable" in Bioshock Infinite, both in 1920x1080 and 2560x1440, these lag spikes did not exist with an R9 280X, the conclusion was due to the 770 and 760 running out of memory

This time-stamped link will take you to when Ryan talks about it : http://youtu.be/_sl__2PEHRI?t=22m40s

And this issue becomes even more detrimental in SLI because as the game becomes more demanding the higher memory it will require and so you will run into a memory brick wall before you can make use of the additional performance of the second card.

And it's not just Bioshock Infinite, a lot of modern games like Tomb Raider, Batman Arkham Origins, Rome 2 Total War, Skyrim with high-res textures & BF4 in specific multi-player levels & generally in single-player.

These games which can't be considered next-gen, except perhaps BF4 already use over 2.4GBs+ of memory on 2560x1440 and 2GBs+ on1920x1080.

Both the PS3 and the XBOX360 had 512mb of memory available for the GPU, in contrast both the PS4 & XBOX1 have 8GB of memory shared between the CPU & GPU. Game development starts on the consoles and trickles down to the PC, developers only had 512mb of VRAM to work with just two years ago and now they have 6-8 times as much, we'll start seeing much higher resolution textures in games and moref memory intensive effects that the developers could not have implemented before, this includes global illumination and other forms of ray-tracing, much larger view distances, more complicated depth of field effects, sub-surface scattering, more tessellation and so on.

[Shakaza]

If you have no plans to SLI in the future, 2GB is fine.

I would probably lean towards a 280x for 3GB VRAM, but it's obviously your choice.

Gee, this guy actually knows what the crap he's talking about. He's right; either choice will be great for you, @malicalik13 .

[i_build_nanosuits]

Both the PS3 and the XBOX360 had 512mb of memory available for the GPU, in contrast both the PS4 & XBOX1 have 8GB of memory shared between the CPU & GPU. Game development starts on the consoles and trickles down to the PC, developers only had 512mb of VRAM to work with just two years ago and now they have 6-8 times as much, we'll start seeing much higher resolution textures in games and moref memory intensive effects that the developers could not have implemented before, this includes global illumination and other forms of ray-tracing, much larger view distances, more complicated depth of field effects, sub-surface scattering, more tessellation and so on.

This, exactly, +1

[jaffacakes]

Now 2 cards remaining: R9 280X Vapor-X Tri-X and MSI GTX 770  :rolleyes:

Well they have both great cooling systems, now it all depends on what are the features you want and what games you are going to play. AMD has 1GB more than the 770 (better for future games) and Mantle, making the 280x a beast in BF4 and upcoming games using Mantle. NVIDIA offers ShadowPlay and Phys-X.

Never listen to fan boys of either team, since the GPU you are going to buy is based on your needs.  

[flibberdipper]

I would go with the ASUS GTX 770.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I would go with the ASUS GTX 770.

yeah we know, you always pick intel and nvidia, you should just stop recommanding based on brands.

[helping]

BF4 already use over [...] and 2GBs+ on1920x1080.

While this is true, it's slightly misleading. The drivers manage memory extremely well, you can technically be VRAM capped without experiencing symptoms of, well, being VRAM capped. In games like BF4 it will often max out the memory since it tends to leave things in VRAM rather than unload them if you're not needed. In such a scenario you can be maxed out with your VRAM in BF4 and see no performance penalty and FPS freefalls from swapping VRAM. In fact, I might suspect the 2GB version to perform slightly better, especially in cases where VRAM is not capped out. 

 

Of course I don't know if that will be true in the future, but for now it is.

Do you think Vapor-x Tri-x card is the best for me?

If you don't plan on doing crossfire/SLI, then yes (If you do want to SLI/crossfire in the future, a 4GB 770 would be a bit better). If you're not sure if you want to, go ahead and get the 280x anyway.

[malicalik13]

Thanks for all answers.And I'm goona buy a R9 280X because of VRAM and Mantle. I'm waiting for Asus's V2 card but Vapor-x is awesome.

[malicalik13]

While this is true, it's slightly misleading. The drivers manage memory extremely well, you can technically be VRAM capped without experiencing symptoms of, well, being VRAM capped. In games like BF4 it will often max out the memory since it tends to leave things in VRAM rather than unload them if you're not needed. In such a scenario you can be maxed out with your VRAM in BF4 and see no performance penalty and FPS freefalls from swapping VRAM. In fact, I might suspect the 2GB version to perform slightly better, especially in cases where VRAM is not capped out. 

 

Of course I don't know if that will be true in the future, but for now it is. 

Do you think Vapor-x Tri-x card is the best for me?

[jaffacakes]

Do you think Vapor-x Tri-x card is the best for me?

I think it would be great. Just don't get the Asus one because of artifracts.

[TechFan@ic]

While this is true, it's slightly misleading. The drivers manage memory extremely well, you can technically be VRAM capped without experiencing symptoms of, well, being VRAM capped. In games like BF4 it will often max out the memory since it tends to leave things in VRAM rather than unload them if you're not needed. In such a scenario you can be maxed out with your VRAM in BF4 and see no performance penalty and FPS freefalls from swapping VRAM. In fact, I might suspect the 2GB version to perform slightly better, especially in cases where VRAM is not capped out.

It is true that memory management through drivers plays a big part in memory usage. However you can't expect software to address a 33% or a 50% memory requirement deficit. That is simply unrealistic. And it's not as if we're talking about a hypthetical situation here... game are already hitting the 2GB limit and there is only so much you can do before you start having to sacrifice image quality not because your 770 isn't performing well but simply because it's running out of memory.

Let me give you an example that would perhaps crytallize this issue for you and show you my perspective.

About a week ago I decided to sell my 7970 to a friend so I can upgrade so I thought I could use one of my older cards to hold me through until a good deal comes along. So I put my GTX 570 in my machine. The 570 has 1.25GB of memory, a GTX 770 performs almost exactly like a 590 which is basically two underclocked 580s, so slightly faster than two 570s.

So a 770 is roughly as fast as two 570s but only has 60% more memory, keep that in mind. So now I fire up Skyrim with my 570 and I get absolutely abysmal performance, performance went down far more than it should when scaling down from a 7970 to a 570 FPS went down from 40 odd to 14-16 and it was completely unplayable. The 570 was just out of memory but this is modded Skyrim so I said lets give the card a fair chance and tried Far Cry 3, same exact issue... I finally jumped on Crysis 3 and then had given up after the same scenario repeated itself.

 

A GTX 570 is roughly 3 years old now and it in fact has more memory per FPS or Gigaflop as compared to the 770 so you're looking at running into this exact same situation far sooner than before. It's simply not worth it especially when arguably better 3GB alternatives exist in the market and at a lower price point.

[helping]

It is true that memory management through drivers plays a big part in memory usage. However you can't expect software to address a 33% or a 50% memory requirement deficit. That is simply unrealistic. And it's not as if we're talking about a hypthetical situation here... game are already hitting the 2GB limit and there is only so much you can do before you start having to sacrifice image quality not because your 770 isn't performing well but simply because it's running out of memory.

Let me give you an example that would perhaps crytallize this issue for you and show you my perspective.

About a week ago I decided to sell my 7970 to a friend so I can upgrade so I thought I could use one of my older cards to hold me through until a good deal comes along. So I put my GTX 570 in my machine. The 570 has 1.25GB of memory, a GTX 770 performs almost exactly like a 590 which is basically two underclocked 580s, so slightly faster than two 570s.

So a 770 is roughly as fast as two 570s but only has 60% more memory, keep that in mind. So now I fire up Skyrim with my 570 and I get absolutely abysmal performance, performance went down far more than it should when scaling down from a 7970 to a 570 FPS went down from 40 odd to 14-16 and it was completely unplayable. The 570 was just out of memory but this is modded Skyrim so I said lets give the card a fair chance and tried Far Cry 3, same exact issue... I finally jumped on Crysis 3 and then had given up after the same scenario repeated itself.

 

A GTX 570 is roughly 3 years old now and it in fact has more memory per FPS or Gigaflop as compared to the 770 so you're looking at running into this exact same situation far sooner than before. It's simply not worth it especially when arguably better 3GB alternatives exist in the market and at a lower price point.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying that's only a situational issue. I'm not doubting that hitting VRAM cap is going to rape whatever power you have in the future, but that modern titles can still completely fill VRAM without any penalties. I think JayZ2Cents did a video on this a while ago with the exact same scenario of hitting 2GB VRAM cap (coincidentally) in BF3 or BF4. I can't remember much else since it was a while ago, but that's what I took from it. You could pretty easily find it if you wanted.

I wasn't expecting it either, but there was no performance difference even with more VRAM. Of course in the future this will likely be false, like I said earlier I'm addressing the "now and current" @1080p.

What you're discussing is exactly why I recommend 4GB 770's if you ever plan to SLI, and 2GB versions not to be SLI'd

[i_build_nanosuits]

GTX 770 2gb. should have never existed, this GPU deserved at least 3gb of VRAM.

its the old GK104 rebranded they could have at least bumped the vram amount...it was cheap shot from nvidia on this.

[malicalik13]

GTX 770 2gb. should have never existed, this GPU deserved at least 3gb of VRAM.

its the old GK104 rebranded they could have at least bumped the vram amount...it was cheap shot from nvidia on this.

It must be 384 bits 3 GB card

[jaffacakes]

GTX 770 2gb. should have never existed, this GPU deserved at least 3gb of VRAM.

its the old GK104 rebranded they could have at least bumped the vram amount...it was cheap shot from nvidia on this.

I totally agree with you.

[TechFan@ic]

I'm not disagreeing, I'm saying that's only a situational issue. I'm not doubting that hitting VRAM cap is going to rape whatever power you have in the future, but that modern titles can still completely fill VRAM without any penalties. I think JayZ2Cents did a video on this a while ago with the exact same scenario of hitting 2GB VRAM cap (coincidentally) in BF3 or BF4. I can't remember much else since it was a while ago, but that's what I took from it. You could pretty easily find it if you wanted.

I wasn't expecting it either, but there was no performance difference even with more VRAM. Of course in the future this will likely be false, like I said earlier I'm addressing the "now and current" @1080p.

What you're discussing is exactly why I recommend 4GB 770's if you ever plan to SLI, and 2GB versions not to be SLI'd

I do see your point. However I personally believe and I'm sure many others do believe that graphics cards are a long term investments.

Judging a product should be done by evaluating its usability throughout its average lifetime not necessarily by how much it's usable right now. Unless your buying it as a temporary solution which is something a few people do.

 

It must be 384 bits 3 GB card

Not entirely sure if that's necessary seeing that the 660 Ti is a 192bit buss card with 2GB of memory. It means either Nvidia can assign more memory to the buss without binary scaling or Nvidia is simply equipping the 660 Ti with 2GB and marketing as such while only 1.5GB is addressable.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Sapphire R9 280X Vapor-x Tri-x

 

*pow*

[flibberdipper]

yeah we know, you always pick intel and nvidia, you should just stop recommanding based on brands.

I don't always choose them. Get your facts right before you accuse someone of something.