Need some suggestions in choosing GPU

[ivan134]

1 hour ago, ?Snarky? said:

Wow. Good  to know.

 

As of writing, I am comparing your CPU and the price of it from my local store.

 

 

for the i3 it costs around $123.

 

for the i5 6400 it costs around $187.

 

for the i5 6500 it costs around $206.

 

your CPU costs around $226.

 

Comparing the 4, i might go to the 6400 due to budget issues.

 

Do you think this is enough to avoid any bottlenecks with a GPU(let's say, 960[4GB variant],380x,480)?

 

I'm not a big fan of the 6400 because of its low clock speeds, but it's not the worst thing in the world. Make sure you get the 480. It will outclass the 380 and 380x by at least 40%.

[vanished]

You may now continue this discussion, assuming everyone can do it calmly.

[?Snarky?]

8 hours ago, deWaardt said:

380 would be a fairly solid choice. GTX 960 would do good as well, but I would still wait for AMD and see what they get done with the RX 480. If it's as good as the papers say, it's definitely going to be worth it.

Well I hope the rx480 will be in my budget though. I was planning a 120hz or 144hz monitor when my gpu is there. Do you think 144hz monitor will be ok with an 380,380x,960, or hopefully 480? I have been researching and some say that 960 is not enough unless you throttle down the settings by going med to high. I do not like ultra settings though. I prefer mid or high. I like smoother gameplay rather than smoother graphics with the sacrifice of fps. 

 

Do you think it my plan for that type of monitor would compensate my plan of the said gpu's?.

 

Thanks a millions man.

[?Snarky?]

8 hours ago, ivan134 said:

I'm not a big fan of the 6400 because of its low clock speeds, but it's not the worst thing in the world. Make sure you get the 480. It will outclass the 380 and 380x by at least 40%.

Ok thank you for pointing that out about the lower clockspeed. I will research more before deciding. 

 

6600 is quite expensive for me, maybe 6500 will do. It was a temporary cpu though until i can get an i7 non-k.

 

Thank you very much man. I really appreciate it.

[?Snarky?]

3 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

You may now continue this discussion, assuming everyone can do it calmly.

Thanks, I was letting them share their opinions but some are hatin' each other though.

 

Any inputs you might share please?

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, ?Snarky? said:

Any inputs you might share please?

I would suggest an i5 if you can stretch the budget; some games really prefer to have 4 real cores.  As for the GPU, those are all good, but if the hype and leaks are true, the 480 should give you both the best performance, and the best performance per dollar.  Wait for proof first though

[?Snarky?]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I would suggest an i5 if you can stretch the budget; some games really prefer to have 4 real cores.  As for the GPU, those are all good, but if the hype and leaks are true, the 480 should give you both the best performance, and the best performance per dollar.  Wait for proof first though

 

Well thank you for that, Since some guys really prefer going for the i5 even my peers here. I think I should probably go with the i5. A little bit expensive but I think I can find a way.

 

I forgot to mention though, I plan on just using 1 card though. Not a fan of SLI/Crossfire builds because it's expensive.

 

Do you think AMD cards are prone to heat problems later on like after 6-12 months of usage? I don't use OC for I am scared of it LOL.

 

Thanks for your inputs

[MiketheGingerGuy]

58 minutes ago, ?Snarky? said:

 

Well thank you for that, Since some guys really prefer going for the i5 even my peers here. I think I should probably go with the i5. A little bit expensive but I think I can find a way.

 

I forgot to mention though, I plan on just using 1 card though. Not a fan of SLI/Crossfire builds because it's expensive.

 

Do you think AMD cards are prone to heat problems later on like after 6-12 months of usage? I don't use OC for I am scared of it LOL.

 

Thanks for your inputs

I think a good idea would be a 4gb 960 from nvidia or 970

 

 

[?Snarky?]

1 minute ago, MiketheGingerGuy said:

I think a good idea would be a 4gb 960 from nvidia or 970

 

 

970 is way out of my league. But that's a good suggestion. 4GB 970 phew!

 

can a 960 be okay with a 144hz monitor though?

[MiketheGingerGuy]

1 minute ago, ?Snarky? said:

970 is way out of my league. But that's a good suggestion. 4GB 970 phew!

 

can a 960 be okay with a 144hz monitor though?

Depends on what games the 4gb 960 SSC from evga had a clock of around 1300 MHz, yes I believe so as long as your not maxing out anything close to Doom at ultra, you'll get 60

 

[MiketheGingerGuy]

1 minute ago, MiketheGingerGuy said:

Depends on what games the 4gb 960 SSC from evga had a clock of around 1300 MHz, yes I believe so as long as your not maxing out anything close to Doom at ultra, you'll get 60

 

60 for doom that is

 

[?Snarky?]

2 minutes ago, MiketheGingerGuy said:

Depends on what games the 4gb 960 SSC from evga had a clock of around 1300 MHz, yes I believe so as long as your not maxing out anything close to Doom at ultra, you'll get 60

 

Well, I just want medium to high settings. I'm afraid I don't like ultra settings due to low-mid range card budget. Can i get a 120hz monitor instead of a 144hz one?

[vanished]

1 hour ago, ?Snarky? said:

 

Well thank you for that, Since some guys really prefer going for the i5 even my peers here. I think I should probably go with the i5. A little bit expensive but I think I can find a way.

 

I forgot to mention though, I plan on just using 1 card though. Not a fan of SLI/Crossfire builds because it's expensive.

 

Do you think AMD cards are prone to heat problems later on like after 6-12 months of usage? I don't use OC for I am scared of it LOL.

 

Thanks for your inputs

Both companies (nvidia and AMD) have had laughably bad cards over the years.  No point in type-casting one of them as eternally bad just because they once were with one specific card.

 

I wasn't suggesting you do SLI/crossfire, and although I haven't used it myself, I would not suggest going that route unless you're already buying a top level card (980 ti, gtx 1080, etc.) and it's still not enough.

 

Heat problems should not develop over time, unless they just build up with dust, in which case that could happen to any card and it's your responsibility to clean it out.

[MiketheGingerGuy]

2 minutes ago, ?Snarky? said:

Well, I just want medium to high settings. I'm afraid I don't like ultra settings due to low-mid range card budget. Can i get a 120hz monitor instead of a 144hz one?

Medium to high settings is good for many people, frankly I dont see a point in ultra other than bragging rights. Personally ive only ever seen/gamed on a 60hz monitor but from how I think of it you should be fine with 120 because it is double the frame rate

[?Snarky?]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Both companies (nvidia and AMD) have had laughably bad cards over the years.  No point in type-casting one of them as eternally bad just because they once were with one specific card.

 

I wasn't suggesting you do SLI/crossfire, and although I haven't used it myself, I would not suggest going that route unless you're already buying a top level card (980 ti, gtx 1080, etc.) and it's still not enough.

 

Heat problems should develop over time, unless they just build up with dust, in which case that could happen to any card and it's your responsibility to clean it out.

Well okay i understand. 

 

I was just saying in advance that maybe if you wanted to know about my SLi/Crossfire ideas. My apologies.

 

Maybe I will go with AMD this time. Price to performance is great. 

 

I was scared though because many people complain that this amd** card produces much heat etc.

 

I have some peers though that have amd cards and they are doing so well after a year or so.

The only complaint i hear is that it uses more power and aside from that amd's are great. 

[vanished]

1 minute ago, ?Snarky? said:

I have some peers though that have amd cards and they are doing so well after a year or so.

The only complaint i hear is that it uses more power and aside from that amd's are great. 

Like I said, they've both had bad cards.  Look into the reference R9 290, or the GeForce 480 and you'll see what I mean  

You should really check reviews of specific cards, and not just specific as in "GTX 960", I mean I specific model, like "EVGA GTX 960 SSC GAMING" or something like that (not suggesting that card particularly, just randomly picked that name as an example)

[?Snarky?]

5 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Like I said, they've both had bad cards.  Look into the reference R9 290, or the GeForce 480 and you'll see what I mean  

You should really check reviews of specific cards, and not just specific as in "GTX 960", I mean I specific model, like "EVGA GTX 960 SSC GAMING" or something like that (not suggesting that card particularly, just randomly picked that name as an example)

Well yes I have been checking specific models of the 960 from asus, gigabyte and evga though.  Will look into 290 and geforce 480 later. 

 

Though some reviews that I have seen been mostly saying that ther are greater cards with amd. Will check it with the local stores here about different model feedbacks on the 960.

 

 

Thanks a lot. Really appreciate it.

[deWaardt]

11 hours ago, ?Snarky? said:

Well I hope the rx480 will be in my budget though. I was planning a 120hz or 144hz monitor when my gpu is there. Do you think 144hz monitor will be ok with an 380,380x,960, or hopefully 480? I have been researching and some say that 960 is not enough unless you throttle down the settings by going med to high. I do not like ultra settings though. I prefer mid or high. I like smoother gameplay rather than smoother graphics with the sacrifice of fps. 

 

Do you think it my plan for that type of monitor would compensate my plan of the said gpu's?.

 

Thanks a millions man.

They will be able to output that refresh rate, but I don't think you will reach 144fps in tripple a games. 60fps should not be a problem.

11 hours ago, ?Snarky? said:

 

Well thank you for that, Since some guys really prefer going for the i5 even my peers here. I think I should probably go with the i5. A little bit expensive but I think I can find a way.

 

I forgot to mention though, I plan on just using 1 card though. Not a fan of SLI/Crossfire builds because it's expensive.

 

Do you think AMD cards are prone to heat problems later on like after 6-12 months of usage? I don't use OC for I am scared of it LOL.

 

Thanks for your inputs

AMD cards won't overheat after an amount of time. If they overheat, they will do that right out of the box.

Overclocking is quite a safe thing to do for GPU's. The worst thing that could happen is that the overclock doesn't work and the driver crashes

11 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I would suggest an i5 if you can stretch the budget; some games really prefer to have 4 real cores.  As for the GPU, those are all good, but if the hype and leaks are true, the 480 should give you both the best performance, and the best performance per dollar.  Wait for proof first though

True.

We all hope the 480 is what it claims to be, so please AMD, don't let us down!

[?Snarky?]

4 hours ago, deWaardt said:

They will be able to output that refresh rate, but I don't think you will reach 144fps in tripple a games. 60fps should not be a problem.

AMD cards won't overheat after an amount of time. If they overheat, they will do that right out of the box.

Overclocking is quite a safe thing to do for GPU's. The worst thing that could happen is that the overclock doesn't work and the driver crashes

True.

We all hope the 480 is what it claims to be, so please AMD, don't let us down!

The benchmarks are out. What do you think of the results? I ask because i lack experience on different cards. 

 

480 is cheap, and i decided i will go for it when it is available here. 

 

Thanks a lot.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, ?Snarky? said:

The benchmarks are out. What do you think of the results? I ask because i lack experience on different cards. 

 

480 is cheap, and i decided i will go for it when it is available here. 

 

Thanks a lot.

Personally I'm very disappointed.  We were led to believe (not officially of course, but still) that it would be similar to a GTX 980, and it turns out it is weaker than a 970.  Thinking analytically, I think it is actually still a great value proposition, but it's hard to feel that way right now.

[?Snarky?]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Personally I'm very disappointed.  We were led to believe (not officially of course, but still) that it would be similar to a GTX 980, and it turns out it is weaker than a 970.  Thinking analytically, I think it is actually still a great value proposition, but it's hard to feel that way right now.

Well sorry for the disappointment. I actually like the specs though. 256-bit with 4/8GB vram. 

 

Ashes of singularity is not included in the benchmarks though. Dunno what it is. Lol

 

 

[vanished]

1 minute ago, ?Snarky? said:

Well sorry for the disappointment. I actually like the specs though. 256-bit with 4/8GB vram. 

 

Ashes of singularity is not included in the benchmarks though. Dunno what it is. Lol

 

 

It should do quite well.  If there's one thing that does seem to be holding true, it's that it handles AMD-optimized games like AotS rather well.

[deWaardt]

19 minutes ago, ?Snarky? said:

The benchmarks are out. What do you think of the results? I ask because i lack experience on different cards. 

 

480 is cheap, and i decided i will go for it when it is available here. 

 

Thanks a lot.

The benchmarks are below what AMD told us it would be, and I am a bit dissapointed.

Nonetheless, the RX 480 is a great card for the price and I would say go get it.

18 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Personally I'm very disappointed.  We were led to believe (not officially of course, but still) that it would be similar to a GTX 980, and it turns out it is weaker than a 970.  Thinking analytically, I think it is actually still a great value proposition, but it's hard to feel that way right now.

They said "980 performance" multiple times before launch.

Such a shame they marketed it way better than it actually is.

 

The specs are quite good nonetheless, especially for a 200 dollar card, and it has better DirectX12 support, which might become important in the future.

I would recommend it over a R9 380 or GTX 960.

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, deWaardt said:

They said "980 performance" multiple times before launch.

Did they?  I completely blocked that out I guess  All the independent leaks (for whatever they were worth, which it turns out is nothing) also said that though.

2 minutes ago, deWaardt said:

The specs are quite good nonetheless, especially for a 200 dollar card, and it has better DirectX12 support, which might become important in the future.

I would recommend it over a R9 380 or GTX 960.

Yes, absolutely.  I'd even recommend it over a 970 or 390, assuming those cards are much more expensive (which I figure they will be).

[RedJamaX]

On 6/28/2016 at 10:56 AM, ?Snarky? said:

I need some help choosing a GPU for my pc. I am planning to buy an i3 for the mean time due to budget. I was aiming for gtx 960 (4GB variant), amd 380x or maybe rx 480(if i can afford).

 

Am I gonna have some bottleneck issues with i3? 

 

Thanks.

 

 

What bottleneck you might have depends on what games you play and at what settings you want to play them....  also depends on which i3??  New SkyLake?  Or are you getting an older version due to budget restraints?

 

See this (below)... it will show the difference in bottlenecks from different CPUs and games based on different graphics settings...