Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

R9 280x or HD 7970

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Graphics Cards
  • HD
  • Components
Last response: in Components
Share
November 11, 2013 12:34:48 PM

Which one is better and why? I plan on only using it for gaming so could you guys send me a link to the best graphics card with one of these chips? Thank you.

More about : 280x 7970

November 11, 2013 12:40:28 PM

from what I have read, the 7970 is slightly faster but not by much, it could be just drivers that are holding back the 280x right now, still too soon to tell
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 106 U Graphics card
November 11, 2013 12:40:37 PM

current 280x's or late november TahitiXTL 280x's? Current 280x's are externally like the 7970 sans new cooler and different stock clocks. Late November 280x's will have revised power consumption and possibly extra minor changes to make it a better chip.
m
0
l
Related resources

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a c 92 U Graphics card
November 11, 2013 12:42:31 PM

the current 280x is pretty much the same as a 7970 like dudewitbow said. I actually haven't heard about the late november revision, but if it's true, then it sounds like it'll be a better chip
Share
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
November 11, 2013 12:44:19 PM

The 280X is a rebranded 7970. The 280X Toxic is probably the strongest 280x right now though.
m
0
l
November 11, 2013 12:47:25 PM

I've got the MSI R9 280X and am very pleased with the performance I've seen.

Battlefield 4 - 60fps on ultra vsync
Metro Last Light - Maxed out settings but can't remember fps.

The 280x is a newer card which will have newer features. It's essentially the same as the 7970 Ghz edition but updated with AMD Mantle...like previous poster said, AMD will launch newer drivers to enhance these cards later in the year.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 11, 2013 12:49:58 PM

The only thing I have to add is pricing, right now 7970 tend to be on sale and priced to sell so if your in the us I would look for BF basicall if you can find a 7970 for 15-20% cheaper than 280x I would get the 7970 hands down.
m
0
l
November 11, 2013 2:04:35 PM

So do you guys think that I should go with the 280x? Somebody said the 280x Toxic, do you agree
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 92 U Graphics card
November 11, 2013 2:12:30 PM

get the 280X, I'd get sapphire vapor X or ASUS DC-II models. the toxic is overpriced
m
0
l
November 11, 2013 2:17:04 PM

The ASUS DC-II is a little cheaper so I think I'll go with that! Thank you! One last question, do you think that this build is satisfactory and will keep games like BF4 at 60+ FPS?
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/20Sqv
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 92 U Graphics card
November 11, 2013 3:07:31 PM

Dj Lawlseys said:
The ASUS DC-II is a little cheaper so I think I'll go with that! Thank you! One last question, do you think that this build is satisfactory and will keep games like BF4 at 60+ FPS?
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/20Sqv


it's a terrific build. I won't promise any FPS figures but it should keep BF4 very playable at the very least. you're getting very good value with that build there.

just one note, you're not getting an overclockable i5, it seems you knew that and selected the H87 chipset to go with it. just wanted to point this out :) 
m
0
l
November 11, 2013 4:16:23 PM

Yeah i don't plan on overclocking, is it recommended I do? Are there any games that I won't be able to play on max settings?
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 92 U Graphics card
November 12, 2013 9:36:42 AM

ty for best answer, which also marks the thread for closing.

anyway, it is generally recommended to get an overclockable CPU since it's about $40 more (price of -K chip plus z-series mobo), and most people can get a 16-30% boost in performance depending on how overclockable their CPU end up being (this depends a lot on luck). this is the cheapest way to get higher performance out of a CPU. true it'll shorten the CPU's lifespan, but cmon, do we really want to be using the same CPU for more than 5 years?

there aren't any games you'll have trouble running at max settings, since the graphic settings are most dependent on the GPU anyway. the place you run into problems is large multiplayer maps, and big pvp fire-fights, where all the info from other players will need to be processed by your CPU. people have run into issues like this back in BF3 (even the BEST CPU of the day can't guarantee 60+ FPS in a huge firefight online), and I expect that we'll see the same problems with bf4
m
0
l
November 13, 2013 2:44:17 PM

But do you still think it will be playable at least? I'm guessing it will.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 92 U Graphics card
November 13, 2013 8:52:23 PM

Dj Lawlseys said:
But do you still think it will be playable at least? I'm guessing it will.


err, when you put it that way, yes, I think it's playable.

here's how I see it, you're buying a fast upper mid-tier GPU to go with a dual core CPU. you'll get decent frame-rates on single player, and you'll be CPU bottlenecked on multiplayer
m
0
l
November 14, 2013 11:23:38 AM

Are you sure about that? Will I not be getting good frames on multiplayer? Because I might reconsider if thats the case...
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a c 92 U Graphics card
November 14, 2013 11:38:35 AM

actually, I confused threads and thought you're getting an i3. without overclocking, you should still be fine with an i5
m
0
l
November 14, 2013 12:50:31 PM

Yeah I was so confused LOL! you said it was a dual core cpu when it's a quad-core... I thought I had something messed up.
m
0
l
!