Going threw a bit of a struggle what to get for the long run....GTX 770 GTX 760 R9 270X gaming R9 280X

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K

Kingl33

Honorable
Nov 29, 2013
20
0
10,510
Ok so im not going to be playing any Crysis 3 but the games ill be playing are:

BF4
WoW
GTA V (whenever it comes out lol)
Civilization
COD (maybe)
BioShock
Batman
Metro Last light
watch Dogs
Day Z
FPS

And a lot more games just off top of head cant think i know all will say GTX 770 but want to know if the others would be good to get at least 40-60 FPS at close to ultra settings not playing above 1920x1080. Also ill be using the AMD FX 8320 CPU will overclock it to 4.0

Trying not to over pay want to have something they will do what i want for now and the near future
 
Solution
Deus Gladiorum
The GTX 770 is certainly the best. @KeyOfTheTwilight, I can guarantee that the GTX 770 trumps the R9 280X. The reason so many believe that the R9 280X beats the GTX 770 is due to poor clarification and less-than-obvious differences in benchmarking, and it's the fault of benchmarkers in my opinion. The benchmarks you posted are a prime testament to that. If you look at other pages in that review which actually benchmark the GTX 770 and the R9 280X, you'll find that there's something amiss:

The GTX 770 they're benchmarking is a stock, reference model shipped out by Nvidia whilst the R9 280Xs that they're benchmarking are all custom cooled, factory overclocked models made by different manufacturers. That maddens me greatly when...
Sort by date Sort by votes
K

Kingl33

Honorable
Nov 29, 2013
20
0
10,510
320 is the max for me since the GTX 770 is on sale just i made an order from staples for it but they are out of stock and now holding my money until god knows so yeah 320 for now
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Deus Gladiorum

Deus Gladiorum

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2013
1,434
0
19,960
The GTX 770 is certainly the best. @KeyOfTheTwilight, I can guarantee that the GTX 770 trumps the R9 280X. The reason so many believe that the R9 280X beats the GTX 770 is due to poor clarification and less-than-obvious differences in benchmarking, and it's the fault of benchmarkers in my opinion. The benchmarks you posted are a prime testament to that. If you look at other pages in that review which actually benchmark the GTX 770 and the R9 280X, you'll find that there's something amiss:

The GTX 770 they're benchmarking is a stock, reference model shipped out by Nvidia whilst the R9 280Xs that they're benchmarking are all custom cooled, factory overclocked models made by different manufacturers. That maddens me greatly when benchmarks do that because it gives a very falsified look at what you can expect from games since most people will misinterpret these reviews just as you did.

However, if you take a look at a reference model GTX 770 and R9 280X OR a custom GTX 770s and R9 280X, the numbers are more in the GTX 770s favor in most games:

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-Radeon-R7-260X-R9-270X-and-R9-280X-Tested/?page=10

I'd also trust Nvidia more because Nvidia has better reliability with drivers for the most part. I have a GTX 770 and I love it to death. I just wish I waited a little while so I could've snagged it for $330 rather than the $400 I threw down on it, but whatever, I still love this thing. Anyway, the GTX 770 is the best GPU in that price range, no doubt. The R9 280X only begins to have advantages at resolutions above 1920x1080 but at 1080p the GTX 770 is the winner.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
K

Kingl33

Honorable
Nov 29, 2013
20
0
10,510
Your setup seems like what im about to do with mine if you mind me askin what FPS do u get in most of your games...Whats also funny anything i get is a upgrade from what i have but yeah looking for long run you know lol
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
KeyOfTheTwilight

KeyOfTheTwilight

Honorable
Nov 19, 2013
32
0
10,540
Now that you point that out you seem to be right. The fact that they use a reference cooled 770 does seem to unfairly tip it in the 280X's favor. I also agree about nvidia's drivers being the most reliable as i have a GTX 660 and it runs solid with no issues at all.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Deus Gladiorum

Deus Gladiorum

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2013
1,434
0
19,960


I have a long distance love affair with my PC (I'm a college student a state away from desktop which is at home) so the games I'm about to mention aren't the absolute newest, but they're still quite recent. In a lot of games at 1920x1080 I get 60 fps on the maximum settings. Certain games I get fps drops anywhere down to 30 or 45 fps depending on the game, but that's because in more CPU bound games my FX-6300 can create a bottleneck (Skyrim, Crysis 1, Borderlands 2). I wish I had picked up an FX-8320 for another $30 :( but oh well. In your case, that shouldn't occur because the extra two logical cores of the FX-8320 really should help pick up the slack (don't be fooled by people who say "games only utilize 4 cores at most" like I was; that's only in the case of Intel which uses physical cores instead of logical cores like AMD).

In GPU bound games, however, there's rarely if ever any major frame drops. I don't have Crysis 3, but on Crysis 2 at Ultra settings the frame rate averages around 52 fps I'd say, and I can't recall it dropping below 45. I don't have Battlefield 4, but on Battlefield 3 at maximum settings out of the 17 hours I've sunk into multiplayer, I can only recall one time I've seen visible frame drop below 60 fps. Arkham City at maximum settings (with 8x CSAA) is a little finicky. I think it averages closer to 45 when Batman is swinging and/or gliding around but I'm almost positive that that's due to the CPU bottlenecking from what I can tell based on monitoring my GPU usage. During fights with enemies, the frame rate is a smooth 60. Overall though, every game I play is extremely playable even when settings are maxed out (with varying levels of AA). You can expect even better performance than what I have.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom