Help choose a new GPU

[Strataras]

Hello fellow pc enthusiasts! Its been almost 3 years since i build my pc and its time to give it some upgrade. The first component i am thinking to change is my GPU. Currently i am using an ASUS GTX670 2GB graphics card and i cant say that i didnt love it. But because i am not a fan boy and i also hear awesome things about AMD i find it a bit hard to choose. The options that i have in mind from NVIDIA is a gtx 970 and from AMD R9 290 or R9 290X seem very strong options too. But both manufacturers give different features like nvida GSync and PhysX and AMD Mantle and True Audio. So since there are many variables i would like some info about PhysX. Is it really a necessary feature? Do many games use it? Does it make a difference? About Mantle. Are games manufacturers using it? Does it make a whole lot more difference in performance than the DirectX 11? 

 

My gaming rig has: Motherboard Gigabyte Z77X UD5H

                               CPU intel i5 3570k overclocked to 4GHz with corsair h60 liquid cooling

                               RAM corsair vengeance 8gig 1600MHz

                               GPU ASUS GTX670

                               PSU 850Watt 

 

The games that i am currently playing are not that demanding like WoW or Heroes of the Storm but i always want to play new games like Far Cry 4 and

GTA V and Thief. The monitor i am using is not a 1080p but i will be changing that soon so i really need a strong GPU so that it can last.

 

Thanks for your time in advance.

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

Could you wait for the '300' series to be launched by AMD in March?  If you don't care about power draw and heat output go for the 290/290x.

[soaringchicken]

290 is great value, but the 970 is also and gives better performance

[Strataras]

well i do have patience and i can wait for the new amd "300" series but i was just curious since amd dropped the prices of their gpus so i was kinda this is a chance i should not miss. and no heat output is not a problem. if the cooling solution on the gpu can keep the gpu safe from overheating i dont really care about noice or anything else.. i am a headset user only so i dont really hear my pc when i am using it. 

[Aniallation]

290 is great value, but the 970 is also and gives better performance

At 1080p. At 1440p and higher, 290 is better

[i_build_nanosuits]

i would order this card:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125499&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=3938566&SID=

[i_build_nanosuits]

But both manufacturers give different features like nvida GSync and PhysX and AMD Mantle and True Audio. So since there are many variables i would like some info about PhysX. Is it really a necessary feature? Do many games use it? Does it make a difference? About Mantle. Are games manufacturers using it? Does it make a whole lot more difference in performance than the DirectX 11?

physics won't change much in games...not many games uses it.

Mantle give a noticeable performance increase if you have a weak CPU (not your case)...so i would choose based on price/performance and not ''features'' since none of these are dealbreakers IMHO.

Mantle is used in i think 4 or 5 games as of today...physics makes a difference in just about as much games too. (physics, i'd trade my physics capability for a single more FPS overall in games honestly) and for mantle directx 12 is supposed to do the same...

 

EDIT: if you enjoy recording gameplay footage Shadowplay (nvidia) is a must have though IMHO...love that feature that's the only one i wouldnt let go.

[Unlikelyjoker]

What a hunk of junk. *lies*

Here have this GTX 760 with 2GB of Vram *really has 0.5GB*

 

Now to the OP post. I would wait for the AMD 300 series 

[soaringchicken]

At 1080p. At 1440p and higher, 290 is better

That's incorrect, As far as I'm concerned you won't hit 3.5gb VRAM at 1440p. However at 4k the 290 beats out, especially with the 8gb variants

[Aniallation]

That's incorrect, As far as I'm concerned you won't hit 3.5gb VRAM at 1440p. However at 4k the 290 beats out, especially with the 8gb variants

That's incorrect. At 1080p many games are already starting to hit 3GB and future titles will continue to make this number grow. At 1440p 3.5GB right now is already cutting it close, soon it will not be enough.

[soaringchicken]

That's incorrect. At 1080p many games are already starting to hit 3GB and future titles will continue to make this number grow. At 1440p 3.5GB right now is already cutting it close, soon it will not be enough.

I can play 1440p on my 280x 3gb?

[i_build_nanosuits]

That's incorrect, As far as I'm concerned you won't hit 3.5gb VRAM at 1440p. However at 4k the 290 beats out, especially with the 8gb variants

 

That's incorrect. At 1080p many games are already starting to hit 3GB and future titles will continue to make this number grow. At 1440p 3.5GB right now is already cutting it close, soon it will not be enough.

 

i concur with Ani on this, most games that have come out in 2014 cap my 3GB of VRAM at 1080p and some (watchdogs, shadow of mordor for example) could use up to 4Gb and 6GB if i would have more...future games will need more than that...4GB is a bare minimum for 1440p if you want any kind of futureproofness out of your purchase...idealy if you want your card to last for a while playing high res textures in games you want a 6GB card for 1440P.

[i_build_nanosuits]

I can play 1440p on my 280x 3gb?

 

You can, sure you can...but you can't max out texture settings in many games.

 

Also the R9 280X is most likely running out of processing power before you can crank up the anti-aliasing and other filters and hit VRAM limitations.

Also it's good to mention that running higher quality textures in games won't hit performance in any noticeable way (anti-aliasing does impact performance big time though)

 

http://lifehacker.com/5985304/get-the-most-from-your-games-a-beginners-guide-to-graphics-settings

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

You can, sure you can...but you can't max out texture settings in many games.

 

Also the R9 280X is most likely running out of processing power before you can crank up the anti-aliasing and other filters and hit VRAM limitations.

Also it's good to mention that running higher quality textures in games won't hit performance in any noticeable way (anti-aliasing does impact performance big time though)

http://lifehacker.com/5985304/get-the-most-from-your-games-a-beginners-guide-to-graphics-settings

 

 

i concur with Ani on this, most games that have come out in 2014 cap my 3GB of VRAM at 1080p and some (watchdogs, shadow of mordor for example) could use up to 4Gb and 6GB if i would have more...future games will need more than that...4GB is a bare minimum for 1440p if you want any kind of futureproofness out of your purchase...idealy if you want your card to last for a while playing high res textures in games you want a 6GB card for 1440P.

 

 

That's incorrect, As far as I'm concerned you won't hit 3.5gb VRAM at 1440p. However at 4k the 290 beats out, especially with the 8gb variants

 

 

The 8gb 290x variants are more than $100 dollars more than the 970.  That argument is void, especially since there really aren't any other cards with more VRam that can compete.  Gigabyte has a 280X with 6gb, but unless you are doing crossfire that is unnecessary. 

[i_build_nanosuits]

The 8gb 290x variants are more than $100 dollars more than the 970.  That argument is void, especially since there really aren't any other cards with more VRam that can compete.  Gigabyte has a 280X with 6gb, but unless you are doing crossfire that is unnecessary. 

not going to argue here, GPU's arent there yet for anything higher than 1080p IMHO...unless you could afford titan's SLI or something like that.

[soaringchicken]

i concur with Ani on this, most games that have come out in 2014 cap my 3GB of VRAM at 1080p and some (watchdogs, shadow of mordor for example) could use up to 4Gb and 6GB if i would have more...future games will need more than that...4GB is a bare minimum for 1440p if you want any kind of futureproofness out of your purchase...idealy if you want your card to last for a while playing high res textures in games you want a 6GB card for 1440P.

As much as the 3.5gb issue on the 970 is big, I wish people would stop bringing it up. As far as I'm concerned, before it came up in news...Literally nobody (at least in my experience) complained or noticed anything

[Zweihander]

As much as the 3.5gb issue on the 970 is big, I wish people would stop bringing it up. As far as I'm concerned, before it came up in news...Literally nobody (at least in my experience) complained or noticed anything

 

The only time you're going to see anyone complaining about it is when they try to push their GPU...as hard as they can.

 

Otherwise, the 970 is still and has been a great GPU.

[Strataras]

thank you guys for your help. also i was concerned about the gtx 970 memory "problem" but ye nobody noticed. i think i will wait until ,amd "300" series releases so i have more options. thanks everyone.  

[i_build_nanosuits]

As much as the 3.5gb issue on the 970 is big, I wish people would stop bringing it up. As far as I'm concerned, before it came up in news...Literally nobody (at least in my experience) complained or noticed anything

 

The only time you're going to see anyone complaining about it is when they try to push their GPU...as hard as they can.

 

Otherwise, the 970 is still and has been a great GPU.

yeah, from the informations i gatered the problem is when you actuly enter scenarios where you do end up using more than 3.5GB of VRAM the performance just tanks...and you can't tell the card to ''not use'' the extra 500MB which would be ideal...IMHO it would be better if it was litteraly a 3.5GB card...but what can you do honestly...the performance numbers havnt changed it's still a great card but i wish there was a way to completely shut down the last 500mb and not having it interfere.

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

not going to argue here, GPU's arent there yet for anything higher than 1080p IMHO...unless you could afford titan's SLI or something like that.

I play at 1440p with a 970.  I have never maxed out its memory or even noticed a memory issue.

[i_build_nanosuits]

thank you guys for your help. also i was concerned about the gtx 970 memory "problem" but ye nobody noticed. i think i will wait until ,amd "300" series releases so i have more options. thanks everyone.  

this will also bring down the prices on the other GPU's across the board...so if the 300 series card arent worth it at least you'll be able to catch an awesome deal on a 290X or maybe even a GTX 980...who knows.

[soaringchicken]

The only time you're going to see anyone complaining about it is when they try to push their GPU...as hard as they can.

 

Otherwise, the 970 is still and has been a great GPU.

What I'm talking about, is people cancelling the 970 out only because of that particular problem. When the 970 is still an excellent card

[i_build_nanosuits]

I play at 1440p with a 970.  I have never maxed out its memory or even noticed a memory issue.

try watchdogs, shadow of mordor, dragon age inquisition...any of these will cap out your VRAM if you load the best textures and some filters...they cap my 3GB card at 1080p.

[Zweihander]

What I'm talking about, is people cancelling the 970 out only because of that particular problem. When the 970 is still an excellent card

 

The funny part is, most of the people overlooking the 970 would never fully utilize it.  *Buys a 980, plays minecraft*

[Strataras]

also since i was an nvidia guy and i found out that evga asus msi are top of the line what about the amd side of things?? how good or bad are sapphire gigabyte msi asus r9 290 and 290x??