Dead Men Walking

Afternoon all,

Looking to upgrade my GPU to upgrade from a 1GB EVGA GTX 460 which can be found here (http://www.amazon.co.uk/EVGA-GeForce-768MB-Graphics-SuperClocked/dp/B003VMGRQU/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1427295248&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=1gb+evga+gtx+460).

Any suggestions as to what I can get £200 or less? I'm out the loop in terms of GPU's atm, don't know what I'm looking for, or how they're measured.

Looking to be able to run graphics intense games like BF (and future games) on ultra if possible

Thanks in advance

I can't speak for every card out there but my personal experience with the GTX970 has been very good. Depending on the maker, its between £240 and £270 (I don't know how flexible your budget is) and is the next one down from the GTX980 which seems to be the high end "semi reasonably" priced card (the bleeding edge Titans being nearly a grand I think?). Its currently got Star Citizen (which is using CryEngine 3) running on high at a very smooth framerate (at 1080)

I found this site to be quite helpful: http://www.game-debate.com/  (http://www.game-debate.com/) as you can choose what games you're interested in and compare your current hardware against its projected specs. Don't have a panic attack if one of the figures says something like 10% in red, this doesn't mean its only got 10% of the specs required, it means its 10% under the required spec.

really does depend on your power supply, the 460 according to Nvidia had a recomended min of 450 w, most newer Nvidia cards hover around the 500-600 w minimum, Ati are a lot more about 750W.

here is a 4gig 770 for £200

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-210-OK&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1750

you will need a min of 600w and a 8 pin and 6 pin connector on your psu as the 460 was 2 six pin, but you can buy a converter here

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CB-033-AK&groupid=1929&catid=153



but if you can stretch to £250 you can get a 4gig 970 (be aware that some people dont like this card as it has issues addresing the last 512 meg)

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-013-PL&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1010

and you dont need the cable coverter as it has 2 x 6 pin connector

issue with 970's

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2875740/nvidia-explains-geforce-gtx-970s-memory-performance-issues-admits-error-in-specs.html

not really a deal breaker unless playing higher than hd

clear as mud?

If you want to see the approx performance of the relevant GPUs, I'd recommend taking a look at this site:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Your GTX460 is listed with a 3D index of 2660.
A GTX770 has an index of 6147.
A GTX970 has an index of 8629.

if you're looking for a cheap card, I have a GTX660 (index of 4118) spare following a recent upgrade, and I'm looking for £120?  It should be able to play BF on ultra no problem.

Stay away from the GTX 970.  It's a 3.5GB card, with another 512mb Vram.

The 512 mb has a different speed from the 3.5GB, and causes stuttering.

I could not sleep at night if I did not post this in response to the above post..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdwUsalwBJ8

Quote from: Chaosphere;396938I could not sleep at night if I did not post this in response to the above post..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdwUsalwBJ8

Oh yeah, that ones hilarious.

I call. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNGi06cq_pQ)

Quote from: Obsydian;396926If you want to see the approx performance of the relevant GPUs, I'd recommend taking a look at this site:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Your GTX460 is listed with a 3D index of 2660.
A GTX770 has an index of 6147.
A GTX970 has an index of 8629.

if you're looking for a cheap card, I have a GTX660 (index of 4118) spare following a recent upgrade, and I'm looking for £120?  It should be able to play BF on ultra no problem.

I've used that site, along with the "PC Gamer 'best bang for buck' budget PC build" (http://www.pcgamer.com/pc-build-guide-budget-gaming-pc/) each time I've upgraded, well recommended. Last year I payed about £250 for an Asus 2gb GTX770 off Amazon, which is now £218. PC gamer are suggesting the GTX960 now, with falls slightly short of the 770 on the benchmark list, but is £25 cheaper at £193.
I'm well pleased with my 770, but obviously you may be able to find something better at a similar cost. Good luck...you can't beat that 'Ultra' feeling ;)

Thanks for the suggestions guys, I notice everyone pointing towards Nvidia, is AMD not on par?? According to the benchmarks, this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/SAPPHIRE-AMD-Graphics-Card-DDR5/dp/B00IRTXPBM/ref=sr_1_5?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1427363593&sr=1-5&keywords=gtx+760) is slightly better than the gtx 660 and about £40 off the price.

As far as I know the rest of my system doesn't slack behind too much..
16GB of Ram
120GB SSD + 1TB HDD
i5 quad core Processor @ 2500k
650w psu

I use nvidia cards as they run FSX better than ATI cards, ive tried both and the Nvidia is less glitchy. thats why i would recommend a 770

Actually AMD are pretty good, and are the pinnacle of bang for buck builds.

An R9 280x (3GB) (http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-347-SP) should be around the same performance wise to a GTX770.

If you want more power, for 250 gbp you can get your hands on an R9 290x (http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-341-SP&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=1752) with 4GB vram.  There's cheaper options(10-15 pounds) from other vendors.

I've had both AMD and Nvidia. The only main reason I went with Nvidia this time is that my new mobo only supports SLi (Nvidia) and not Crossfire (AMD), if ever I decide I want a second gpu

Is stuttering with the 970 actually confirmed? Or just assumption? If there is stuttering with the 970 is it confirmed the same game doesn't suffer the same problem with other cards?

Stuttering is proven.   A quick google (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=970%20stutter&rct=j) reveals huge issues which is why refunds have been offered.

This looks a great deal: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-208-OK&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1402

£250 for a new  GTX 780Ti

Quote from: Whitey;396966This looks a great deal: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-208-OK&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1402

£250 for a new  GTX 780Ti

It's not a great deal at all mate.

For the same price, you get an R9 290x 4GB Vram.  3GB doesn't cut it anymore, so what's the point.

And, the difference is fps between the two is negligible, and to top it off the R9 goes on top with Dx11 games.

Link1 (http://gpuboss.com/gpus/Radeon-R9-290X-vs-GeForce-GTX-780-Ti) Forget their "winner", just look at the stats.  Yeah, it's slightly louder, and consumes more power.  If you have at least a 500 watt psu, who gives a damn.  Want more performance out of the R9, change the cooler, and OC it.
Link2 (http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6397/4k-showdown-nvidia-geforce-gtx-780-ti-3gb-vs-amd-radeon-r9-290x-4gb/index.html)

I think it's a great deal for that card (show me a better price) :narnar:

For gaming at 1080p I would pick the GTX 780Ti over the R9 290X. if your doing 4k then yes the 3GB aint enough.

Quote from: Whitey;396968I think it's a great deal for that card (show me a better price) :narnar:

For gaming at 1080p I would pick the GTX 780Ti over the R9 290X. if your doing 4k then yes the 3GB aint enough.

It's not just about it's original vs discounted price..  Even at the same price point, going 780ti is gimping yourself, and who does that?

4GB vram will be minimum specs soon, so why waste the money?  The vram isn't just for 4k you know.. ultra textures also require vram.

Nvidia mentioned (http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-talks-about-pascal-will-be-fast-and-has-3d-stacked-memory.html) that Pascal will have upto 32GB vram.  The more vram your current card has, the longer its lifetime.  While I take PR with a pinch of salt, the reality right now still applies.  Vram gives you wings.

If you're gaming at 4k, 4GB aint enough either, nor is one card really (Titan x excepted) but for BF4 and the like the 290 is better, and with the non reference coolers now available the early probs of heat and noise are a non-issue.

And on a somewhat related note: This (http://wccftech.com/amd-r9-290x-fast-titan-dx12-enabled-3dmark-33-faster-gtx-980/#ixzz3VX0hVfP0)

for current day gaming, i'd pick that 780Ti over a 290x any day, since they are the same price.  If you are wanting to overclock the 290x you must buy an after market cooling solution so you are pushing the price up.

Regardless we are getting away from what Jewelz asked for which was a SUB £200 card.

http://www.ebuyer.com/704631-gigabyte-gtx-960-oc-4gb-gddr5-dual-link-dvi-hdmi-displayport-pci-e-gv-n960wf2oc-4gd

GTX960 with 4Gb vram for £187 is what i would recommend at that price point.

"  If you are wanting to overclock the 290x you must buy an after market cooling solution so you are pushing the price up."   Errr what?  Have you looked at R290s recently? They have the best cooling solutions available on any GPU as standard.

Quote from: TeaLeaf;396964Stuttering is proven.   A quick google (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=970%20stutter&rct=j) reveals huge issues which is why refunds have been offered.

I wouldn't say that shows its proven. Many of those links have people replying saying they have the same problem with different cards. It doesn't sound conclusive to me but then I'm certainly no expert.

I'm after a new card too and think I'm still swaying towards the 970 mainly for the low power and silent desktop use.

As for the 960, I was told that 4gb on these cards is pointless due to the 128 bit bus. Is this true?

Guys, for crying out loud, the wattage issue was outdated ages ago.  It doesn't make any difference anymore as 500ish watt PSUs are the standard now.  It was an issue when we had 150-250watt PSUs over ten years ago.

Unless you have a laptop you're planning to do serious gaming on, its total BS.  Don't fall for fanboy excuses.


As for the DB issue, again its hogwash.  An R9 290x has around the same decibel output as a GTX 690.  Since I have owned my 690, I can only recall a couple of times I heard the damned things fan..  And that's in a system where an H100 closed loop cooler is the primary noise producer.

I've always been an Nvidia guy since the 256, apart from an all-in-wonder 9800 pro radeon series ages ago.  I'm biased towards Nvidia, but you simply can't ignore the fact that the R9 290x puts the GTX 780ti in the bin.  It's cheaper (when the 780 isn't on sale), it's better, and it has more vram.  You need vram to run games on ultra, and that's what Jewelz also asked for.


Now let's be real, do you think that stores would be cutting 100 pounds from the 780 Ti price if it's still the card to go for?  They want to get rid of the old stock, which isn't worth a damn anymore.


As for the R9 290x price.  If it's considered too much, there's the similarly specced R9 290 at 221 quid.


As for the 790 stuttering, do you think that a company as greedy as Nvidia would be issuing refunds if the issue doesn't exist?  No business would do that.  Just go watch reviews about the thing and see for yourself.

I'm not a fanboy. To start with I'm far too old to be called that ;)
I've got no bias at all. However at present I'm leaning towards nvidia due to wattage. You can say it doesn't matter but less heat means my system runs cooler overall so system fans are quieter. The lower wattage also means my psu runs quieter. I know that because I used to have an AMD card in it. As my pc is permanently in the living room, a silent pc is required.

It's just a personal preference right now. I may even hang on and see what the new R300 series has to offer.

I have alternated over the years between ATi and nVidia, mainly due to them hopping over each other performance-wise and me simply choosing the best card that I could for my budget at the time.

The one thing I have always liked about the AMD cards is that you can use EyeFinity to game across 2 screens, whereas the nVidia Surround requires at least 3 screens to work.

I bought a 290x for my daughter's new PC (she does graphics design) last year and had nothing but problems with it. It was (is) noisy under load and has been returned to AMD twice (once for overheating issues, and once for memory issues) and they repaired and sent back the same card each time when I was hoping for a replacement.  The card is running ok now, but my daughter still complains about it being noisy at times.

By contrast, I've just bought a GTX 970 for my own gaming rig (for Star Citizen and Elite) and it's absolutely fantastic. Quieter than the case fans, even under load, and I get a steady 45-50 FPS when in the hangar in SC and a rock solid 60 FPS when in Arena Commander. No stuttering..none.

for me, if it's a direct choice between the 290x or the 970, I'd choose the 970 (well, actually, I already did!) :)

Thanks for the replies all. After shopping around a bit it would seem the Radeon R9 290 is best value for money at the moment at £220ish. This is currently benchmarked at 6571. My question to you guys is, would I get better performance from 2x GTX 660? £180, combined benchmark of around 9000. Does it not work like that?

Tbh the 290 is probably the better deal, but it is quite close.  The reasons I'd go for the 290 rather than 660 SLI are:

-it's not SLI, it is simpler and will run into less problems with games/drivers
-you can go SLI/Crossfire later as funds allow and 2 x 290 will definitely outperform 2x660 SLI
-the 290 has slightly more memory so seems to be slightly more competent with higher screen resolutions
-it's simpler in my case and draws less power and produces less heat

If you're gaming at 1920x1080 then there's a gnat's whisker in it and the sheer convenience would mean a win for the single card option.

If you're gaming at 2560x1440 then the 290 wins by a bigger margin, but still not by loads.

:2cents:

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=1859&gid2=1745&compare=radeon-r9-290-vs-geforce-gtx-660-sli

I considered starting a new thread but then this one hasn't been posted in for a week so made the assumption it would okay to hijack this one a little.

I am looking to change my gfx card. I currently have a GTX 760 2Gb. I am more interested in the memory upgrade to 4Gb VRAM than the actual speed increase. However, the faster the better. I was considering the 970 but with the possible issues with going over 3.5Gb use and the fact that I also want a new pair of headphones (so the budget is tight), I was considering just getting a 960 4Gb. I know performance wise it's not a big leap but I seem to be having some issues with Arma wanting more than 2Gb VRAM.

I only have a 1080p monitor and there is no chance of that being upgraded any time soon so would the 960 be a good option or should I save the extra pennies for a 970? My concern with the 970 is that although the 3.5Gb issue doesn't seem to be a big deal at the moment, I wonder if games like GTA V possibly wanting as much VRAM as possible may start to show the issue up.

I'm also not that interested in waiting for the new AMD cards as I prefer cards with low TDP which is why I moved away from AMD in the first place. I can't see their new cards being any different. That's just personal preference so don't shoot me down :D

With 1080p you don't get any benefit from the 4MB vram.  Afaiaa it is only when you start gaming at higher resolutions such as 2560x1440+ that the extra vram shows any benefit.  So choose a card but don't be hooked up on 4MB!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Textures use vram, the higher the quality, the more vram required.

A lot more than 4MB ;)

Quote from: TeaLeaf;397333With 1080p you don't get any benefit from the 4MB vram.  Afaiaa it is only when you start gaming at higher resolutions such as 2560x1440+ that the extra vram shows any benefit.  So choose a card but don't be hooked up on 4MB!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I don't agree with that though. I have read reports and witnessed myself that Arma 3 requires more than 2Gb VRAM at 1080p. I've also read reports of games like Watchdogs running a lot better at 1080p with 4Gb cards rather than 2Gb cards due to the amount of VRAM they need. So it just isn't true these days that 2Gb is enough at 1080p.

Here is just one example (the Watchdogs one). It's in German but the second graph alone of the EVGA GTX 960 2Gb vs 4Gb shows just how much 4Gb makes a difference.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Geforce-GTX-960-Grafikkarte-259742/Tests/4-GB-Test-Vorteile-Benchmarks-1154370/

(http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/1020x/2015/03/EVGA_GTX_960_SSC_4G_Skalierung-pcgh.png)

There are a small number of games with very high texture loads or who offer a hyper-quality texture download pack.  The reviews I read when buying my GPUs last year all concluded that 4MB was really only needed at higher resolutions than 1080p.  I'm happy to be corrected if something radical has changed in the last 12 months, but that's not what I read.  Granted, if you happen to play one of the exceptions then maybe 4MB is for you, but they are in the minority.  The vast majority of the games that are played are either cpu-bound or do not have excessively high texture loads, neither if which would require 4MB.

A quick check of the frame rates of different games with different cards should tell you what you need to know and as far as I can tell there are a large number of gfx cards with less than 4MB that hit high frame rates.

Here's an example of the type of article I was reading.
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

My feeling is that the number of those "exceptions" will climb quite quickly especially ports from PS4/XB1 games. I wouldn't be at all surprised if GTA V works better with 4Gb cards at 1080p and the same for the Witcher 3 among others. Of course until they come out that is just opinion.

In play Warframe and I recently bought a 980. At 2560x1440 even that game which is 3 years old reaches max capacity of the 980. So I think even older games can benefit from the extra RAM especially since new effects and shaders/ textures keep getting created and added to spice up old classics. HL2 looks great since the community updates but will chew up my 980 when everything is maxed. I see the odd 45fps when playing it. Given CS:GO gets over 200!

Quote from: albert;397363In play Warframe and I recently bought a 980. At 2560x1440 even that game which is 3 years old reaches max capacity of the 980. So I think even older games can benefit from the extra RAM especially since new effects and shaders/ textures keep getting created and added to spice up old classics. HL2 looks great since the community updates but will chew up my 980 when everything is maxed. I see the odd 45fps when playing it. Given CS:GO gets over 200!

The key part of that statement is the 2560x1440 bit.  It's a 78% increase in the number of pixels to play with compared to 1920x1080, which is what I was saying: 'at higher than 1080p resolutions you start seeing the benefits of additional vram'.  I play at 2560x1600 and wanted 4MB cards, unfortunately there wasn't the supply of 4MB GTX770's when I built my rig, so I ended up with 2 x GTX770 2MB in SLI which seems to cope well enough (probably because of the SLI, not because of the 2MB)!    I will however be upgrading to 4MB+ graphics cards next year, when a certain high texture load space sim goes live, so I'd agree with Redd that there will be an increasing number of games offering this potential, but it will still be those at higher resolutions who need the 4MB first.  By the time it becomes a requirement for all games at 1080p I suspect it will be time to upgrade the graphics card yet again.

I did a test last night and every game I owned I could get to want more than 2gb by upping the quality. If you are happy with lower quality then fair enough but I want the very best a game can offer.

If I wanted less than that I'd be playing on a game console for the convenience ;)

Quote from: ReddFour;397368If I wanted less than that I'd be playing on a game console for the convenience ;)

If you wanted more you'd be playing on a PS4 with its 8GB 'unified' :P

Quote from: ReddFour;397368I did a test last night and every game I owned I could get to want more than 2gb by upping the quality. If you are happy with lower quality then fair enough but I want the very best a game can offer.

I'm not arguing that some games (and an increasing number of new games) need more than 2GB, but to say that 'all games you own need more than 2GB' is a little extreme (unless you are only listing specific carefully chosen games).  As an example, at 1080p on max:

TF2 1.37GB
Quake Live 0.9GB
Diablo 0.9GB
Star Craft II 1.25GB
Crysis 3 2.73GB
Assassins Creed IV 2.02GB
Far Cry 4 2.71GB
Star Citizen (pre-Alpha) 3.04GB
World of Tanks 1.4GB
Counter-strike 1.1GB
FSX 1.3GB

Redd, earlier in the thread I recommended a 4GB card (the 290) so I am not a ignoring the 4GB option.  I'm just saying don't let it be the rule, it's a consideration that is less relevant at lower resolutions than at higher resolutions and dependent upon an individuals needs and intended use.  Of course, if all you want to do is play Mordor, then you'll need an 8GB vram graphics card!

Edit: I'm off to buy a couple of 32GB vram nVidia Pascal graphics cards! (hopefully it will come out in time for Star Citizen's PU launch)

Warframe uses 3.5GB of vram at 1080p. Its strains the CPU and North Bridge more than the gfx card though! The main recommended fix is to turn off CPU parking:

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/289244-framerate-drops-high-cpu-loads-cpu-overheating-this-might-fix-it-cpu-core-unparking/

Quote from: albert;397374Warframe uses 3.5GB of vram at 1080p. [/url]

I'm seeing less vram usage at 2560x1600 than you are at 1920x1080, so I have no clue what is happening here!

Quote from: TeaLeaf;397376I'm seeing less vram usage at 2560x1600 than you are at 1920x1080, so I have no clue what is happening here!

A bug or lack of proper optimisation after U15. It also depends on the game but there are regularly 40+ fully rendered fps quality enemies on the screen, magic effects, over a dozen animations per object and then environmental effects in Warframe. It's a proper groundbreaker and constant work in progress that releases 3-4 times a week and does a major upgrade at least once a month. In Beta. With the new 4v4 capture the cube and 8 man raid series it's becoming even better. All run from a host machine out of the players in game.

Quote from: albert;397374Warframe uses 3.5GB of vram at 1080p. Its strains the CPU and North Bridge more than the gfx card though! The main recommended fix is to turn off CPU parking:

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/289244-framerate-drops-high-cpu-loads-cpu-overheating-this-might-fix-it-cpu-core-unparking/

Are you sure it's vram, and not ddram?

I played warframe on 1080p at ultra, yet I have 2GB vram per card. 690 is a dual slot.

Core unparking gives slight benefits in cpu intensive games, so it shouldn't be vram.


As for 2vs4GB, again textures use vram too.  Some games already use it now, expect to have exponential growth in games requiring them too.  Plus, it helps since PC games are usually unoptimised console ports.  And finally, remember not to believe Nvidia marketing, I doubt we'll be seeing 32GB vram anytime soon, even by using stacked ram; here's hoping though.

Early reports of GTA V requiring over 3gb VRam at 1080p.

I can't comment from personal experience as I haven't yet bought GTA V, but only a couple of days ago Rockstar said:

QuoteYesterday Rcokstar releases the system requirements if you plan to play with your PC on Ultra HD. Now we assume that if you already have an Ultra HD monitor, the rest of the PC selection will be fine as well ;)

According to Rockstar, the recommended specifications are based on hardware that can run the game at 1080p, at 60 frames-per-second. For that, Rockstar suggest a Nvidia GTX 660 2GB or AMD HD7870 2GB.

"To run the game on a 4K display at 30fps," says Hoare, "you’ll need at minimum an AMD HD 7870 or Nvidia GTX 760 with 2GB of VRAM." As for the 4K at 60 frames-per-second, that'll require a "high-end SLI or Crossfire setup."

Oh snap, I better upgrade my VGA then !

Kevin Hoare said:

QuoteWe based our recommended spec on hardware that we knew could comfortably achieve 1080P resolution at 60fps.

Recommended specifications:
OS: Windows 8.1 64 Bit, Windows 8 64 Bit, Windows 7 64 Bit Service Pack 1
Processor: Intel Core i5 3470 @ 3.2GHZ (4 CPUs) / AMD X8 FX-8350 @ 4GHZ (8 CPUs)
Memory: 8GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GTX 660 2GB / AMD HD7870 2GB
Sound Card: 100% DirectX 10 compatible
HDD Space: 65GB
DVD Drive

I guess it depends on your system but also the large pinch of salt we should always take with developer recommendations!   If they say 2GB we probably ought to be aiming for more and it certainly won't hurt!

I'm only going by comments made by people playing it this morning. Saying 1080p ultra is going over 3gb VRam.

I have a 760 2gb. I can't possibly believe the developers that I could run this game at 4k 30fps. That sounds way too optimistic especially for an open world game.

The ps4 isn't far behind a gtx 760 and that is a closed system. So how come that doesn't run at 4k. Sounds like marketing bs to me lol.

I reconfigured GTA V for ultra or very high everything with all features on at 2560x1440. The setup screen has an estimate of VRam expected and for this setup it hit 3.43GB. The benchmark crashed the game!

Sorry. It should have been that 1080p ultra is going over 2gb not 3. Many say it goes over 2gb on very high. Quite a few are complaining that you get far more fluctuations in fps on 2gb.

I'm going to upgrade to 4gb when I can.

I think the benchmark is bugged. I run the game at Very High 2560x1440 with absolutely no lag but it does state it is consuming over 2GB. I suspect that having 2GB is going to be restrictive in this game. I can't see the point in upgrading one 2GB card to another 2GB card these days.