Graphics Card showdown

[Timmeh]

Single monitor, 1080p hoping to run ultra for arma 2/3, bf3 and that sort of stuff. narrowed it down to the gigabyte g1 gaming gtx960, gigabyte gv-r9 285 OC 2GB or the ASUS strix R9285? any help would be awesome

[zappian]

Neither, if you want ultra settings 1080p go with a r9 280 at least.

[Archangel1994]

Neither, if you want ultra settings 1080p go with a r9 280 at least.

You are aware that an R9 285 and a GTX 960 both perform almost the same as the R9 280....

[Hatsune Miku 「 」]

^this. 

[soaringchicken]

@zappian a 285 is a refresh of the 280. 

At that pricepoint the 285 is your best bet, however I honestly think you should go for a 280x or even a 290 for that matter

[Timmeh]

You are aware that an R9 285 and a GTX 960 both perform almost the same as the R9 280....

If not better

[Timmeh]

@zappian a 285 is a refresh of the 280. 

At that pricepoint the 285 is your best bet, however I honestly think you should go for a 280x or even a 290 for that matter

I live in aus and the 280x has been discontinued at most computer stores :'( i looked into it as the results were much better for the same price as the 285's

[zappian]

@zappian a 285 is a refresh of the 280. 

At that pricepoint the 285 is your best bet, however I honestly think you should go for a 280x or even a 290 for that matter

 

WTF guys , the 280 has more VRAM.

Im tired of reposting this shit.

 

 

You need 3 GB of VRAM for 1080p ultra gaming wether you want to admit it or not.

 

I recommend the 280x or 290 as well.

[Archangel1994]

You need 3 GB of VRAM for 1080p ultra gaming wether you want to admit it or not.

1. No you don't

2. You only give shadow of mordor as an example, a game of which is known that the ultra texture pack requires 3GB otherwise your fps goes down the crapper.

 

If you want to prove x is better than y, use more than 1 example...

[soaringchicken]

I live in aus and the 280x has been discontinued at most computer stores :'( i looked into it as the results were much better for the same price as the 285's

Nope, I live in Australia too, http://www.msy.com.au/pc-components/14966-sapphire-11221-22-41g-3gb-ddr5-r9-280x-tri-x-oc-pci-e-vga-card.html

[zappian]

1. No you don't

2. You only give shadow of mordor as an example, a game of which is known that the ultra texture pack requires 3GB otherwise your fps goes down the crapper.

 

If you want to prove x is better than y, use more than 1 example...

 

The trend is for games to use more VRAM , if games are already using more than 2 GB what does that mean for the future?

 

You dont need to be a genius to understand this.

[Archangel1994]

You dont need to be a genius to understand this.

You don't need to be a genius either than 1 case has practically no weight in an argument when there are SO MANY more. SoM is an exception in that it demands 3GB of VRAM to even run properly when using ultra textures....

 

Pointing out that 1 games want 3GB or more and then concluding you need at least 3GB for 1080p is the dumbest conclusion ever

[soaringchicken]

The trend is for games to use more VRAM , if games are already using more than 2 GB what does that mean for the future?

 

You dont need to be a genius to understand this.

@Archangel1994 has a point, arguing anymore would just be digging a hole 

[zappian]

You don't need to be a genius either than 1 case has practically no weight in an argument when there are SO MANY more. SoM is an exception in that it demands 3GB of VRAM to even run properly when using ultra textures....

 

Pointing out that 1 games want 3GB or more and then concluding you need at least 3GB for 1080p is the dumbest conclusion ever

 

Games are already pushing 2 GB of VRAM , far cry 4 uses 1.8 to 1.9  VRAM from my testing , ground zeros uses 1.8 to 1.9  VRAM from my testing on a 270x i can test more games if you arent satisfied with the examples i gave.

 

Oh and dragon age inquistion also uses aroud 1.7 to 1.9 VRAM

 

Point is if games already use almost 2 GB of VRAM whats gonna happen in future games?

 

Option A - They use more VRAM

 

Option B- They use less VRAM or less.

 

Take your pick.

[zappian]

@Archangel1994 has a point, arguing anymore would just be digging a hole 

 

Whatever i will never recommend a 2 GB video card to anyone , i have one and its already quite short on VRAM on the games i mentioned on the post above.

I wont recommend to anyone something i wouldn't buy myself at the present time.

Would you buy a 2 GB video card?

[Timmeh]

Anyway so back to the point, the 280x is too hard to get a hold of, do i get the g1 gaming OC 960 or the R9 285 and if so the asus or gigabyte

[Archangel1994]

Games are already pushing 2 GB of VRAM , far cry 4 uses 1.8 to 1.9  VRAM from my testing , ground zeros uses 1.8 to 1.9  VRAM from my testing on a 270x i can test more games if you arent satisfied with the examples i gave.

 

Oh and dragon age inquistion also uses aroud 1.7 to 1.9 VRAM

Sooooooo, you don't need 2GB otherwise you would experience the issues related to VRAM bottlenecking

 

You just made an argument against yourself

 

 

Point is if games already use almost 2 GB of VRAM whats gonna happen in future games?

In future games the cards that have 2GB of VRAM are usually a bit weak so you'll turn down the settings anyway and easily putting you below 2GB of VRAM usage again

 

 

Option A - They use more VRAM

 

Option B- They use less VRAM or less.

See above for why it's not so much an issue. 

[Archangel1994]

Anyway so back to the point, the 280x is too hard to get a hold of, do i get the g1 gaming OC 960 or the R9 285 and if so the asus or gigabyte

If same price: GTX 960

Otherwise go with the cheaper option

[zappian]

Sooooooo, you don't need 2GB otherwise you would experience the issues related to VRAM bottlenecking

 

You just made an argument against yourself

 

 

In future games the cards that have 2GB of VRAM are usually a bit weak so you'll turn down the settings anyway and easily putting you below 2GB of VRAM usage again

 

 

See above for why it's not so much an issue. 

 

I said it was enough , for NOW.

 

But is barely enough , do you want a brand new component that barely does the job?

 

And in some games it isnt enough , like in ACu with maxed filters and shadow of mordor.

[soaringchicken]

Whatever i will never recommend a 2 GB video card to anyone , i have one and its already quite short on VRAM on the games i mentioned on the post above.

I wont recommend to anyone something i wouldn't buy myself at the present time.

Would you buy a 2 GB video card?

Yes?

[Timmeh]

If same price: GTX 960

Otherwise go with the cheaper option

Thanks heaps man, but may i ask why? not doubting it or anything legit just curious

[soaringchicken]

Anyway so back to the point, the 280x is too hard to get a hold of, do i get the g1 gaming OC 960 or the R9 285 and if so the asus or gigabyte

I  did link you the 280x a few posts back.....

[Archangel1994]

But is barely enough , do you want a brand new component that barely does the job?

1.7-1.9GB is not barely doing the job. It's doing the job and in future games you will tone down the settings anyway because the cards that have 2GB of VRAM are of course not the strongest of cards anyway so after turning down settings (Which you have to if you want playable framerates) you will not break the 2GB barrier anyway

 

Also I had an HD7870XT before this GTX 970 and it maxed out BF4 ultra preset without any VRAM issues so you don't NEED more than 2GB

[Timmeh]

I  did link you the 280x a few posts back.....

no i know but i havnt heard much about sapphire and umart have them and only them for the 280x in stock too so i have no idea? are the deece?

[zappian]

Yes?

 

Says the guy with a 3 GB 280x .

 

You picked the intelligent choice and are telling people to pick the dumbest choice.

 

Anyways OP get a 280x , it performs better than the 960 has a very wide framebuffer and tons of VRAM.