Confusing for Consumers, end users

[Diozark]

Hi All, 

What is the difference between these two cards RE: What would a non technical person see on the screen, Can You actually see the difference on the Monitor ?

Would You actually be able to see a difference in how your pc performs. I know there are alot of variables, but for ex: If You are Just going to play pc games , with your morning coffee, How would the Settings compare ? Ex: Low settings on The Hunter Primal a steam game vs the High Settings ?

 

R7-250A-ELF4 Radeon R7 250 4GB 128-Bit DDR3 PCI Express 3.0 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Low Profile Ready Video Card

• 384 Stream Processors
• 4GB 128-Bit DDR3
• PCI Express 3.0

 

vs

 

R9-290A-EDFD Radeon R9 290 4GB 512-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

 

2560 Stream Processors

4GB 512-Bit GDDR5

PCI Express 3.0

 

[minibois]

-snip-

You can compare GPU's with in game performance.

You can't compare them in specs. And as you can see the first GPU has DDR3 memory and the other one has GDDR5 memory.

That's like comparing apples with pears (is that a saying in English too?  :huh: )

 

But I can say this: the R9 290 will be significantly better compared to the R7 250.

[incarnate]

those two cards are a night and day difference. the r7 250 could do sub 1080p resolution (say 1600x900) at medium/low settings where the r9 290 can do up to 1440p (2560x1440) at high/ultra. the two cards can't even be compared. you're literally asking the difference between a smart car and a Ferrari here (to put it into car terms)

[tmlhalo]

R7 250 would do 720p at higher details maybe between 30-60 fps. Or 1080p at low-medium detail around 30 fps.

 

The R9 290 would max out 720p probably all the way up to 144fps. It does 1080p at high / ultra details 60+fps.

[Diozark]

We'll I knew the r9 would perform better, the reason I posted the question was because they are both 4GB GPU's

 

Thank You for posting I have a better understanding of the difference. 

[Ertman]

I get it. You were confused by the amount of memory (4GB) being a performance indicator. The amount of memory is not generally indicative of performance but can (not necessarily) still matter when comparing similar performing cards.

AMD tried to make this easier with their naming schemes, but I guess it's still not clear.

R7 < R9

[Diozark]

I get it. You were confused by the amount of memory (4GB) being a performance indicator. The amount of memory is not generally indicative of performance but can (not necessarily) still matter when comparing similar performing cards.

AMD tried to make this easier with their naming schemes, but I guess it's still not clear.

R7 < R9

Thank You Ertman

[alfaomega]

Also, keep in mind that when comparing graphics cards for gaming purposes (or cpu's for that matter) even looking at the clock speed tells you very little. The only way to actually compare cards is to run the actual games in question and run the benchmarks there. There are plenty of synthetic benchmarks which are also very good for controlled testing of particular set ups and do a good job of ranking cards but they fall short in the sense that sometimes game engines will hit different bottlenecks and limitations. So here are some charts that will help you get an idea of what the cards can do. 

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2015-vga-charts/benchmarks,186.html

 

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

[Badger906]

think of it in terms of money lol. more you pay the more you get.

thats a simplified statement and if you only intend to play minesweeper then you don't need anything fancy.

it all books down to what you play, what your other hardware is and what resolution you play at.

then you need to learn how graphics card "families" work. for example nvidia structure their current cards as the 900 series. 910 being the lowest and 980 the highest (well bar titan but let's ignore that for now)

once you know how that works you can tell what does what. the 980 being the top tier is aimed at high end high resolution. so 1440p to 4k where as the 910 would be aimed at just showing a picture on the screen and Web browsing.

sweet spot cards tend to fall 1 or 2 places from the top. nvidias current sweet spot card is the 970. amds is a little harder to gague with current price drops.

in the UK you can get a 290x for about £250 which is way less than a 970 buy offers similar if not better performance. it would be a little over kill for 1080p 60fps gaming but it's such a better buy than the 280x for future proofing reasons.

when it comes to graphics cards shooting has nothing to do with spec, and all to do with budget. if you can afford top end and want top end get top end. if things are tight or you're not too serious about having everything maxed out than you find the middle ground.

[NumLock21]

The amount of video memory does not determine the performance of that card. It needs to be based on the entire architecture. Just like cars if both have the same amount of horse power and 1 is a prius and the other is a merc then of course prius wont be the same as the merc. It's a combination of techologies under the hood that determine its performance, same with graphic cards.

And there are plenty of reviews, read them before buying.

[Samfisher]

We'll I knew the r9 would perform better, the reason I posted the question was because they are both 4GB GPU's

 

Thank You for posting I have a better understanding of the difference. 

 

This is how I usually explain VRAM and system RAM to the less tech savvy.  Imagine your PC is a construction yard, and the RAM you have is the amount of space you have in the yard to work with, store your tools, basically working area.

 

Your working area will not increase the speed the building is built, cos that depends on the workers (CPU or GPU).  With slow workers, having all the space in the world does nothing, whereas having fast workers you can utilize the available space effectively.  RAM and VRAM in and of itself is 0 indication of what something will perform like, only shows the POTENTIAL of performance after considering other factors in the system.

[Diozark]

Hello All, 

Thank You 

Very Helpful Info.