ChanceTheNinja said:
:/ Alright what fps could I get on something like Ghosts with high (not ultra) settings? Also what brand is the best?
Ghosts? If that's the most demanding game you expect to play then you could certainly chop a good $400 off your budget and still get far past 60 fps. Call of Duty has never been a demanding series, and just because it's moved to next-gen doesn't mean that's changed. Sure, the settings are more demanding, but CoD is designed to run on $150 hardware on, I suppose medium settings, at 1920x1080 (for multiplayer anyway) and still achieve 60 fps. Needless to say, a GTX 780 Ti would
decimate Ghosts. In fact, the game is so non-GPU intensive that any benchmarks I can find for it won't even list the GTX 780, let alone the GTX 780 Ti, simply because it's obvious that the game would be blown away. The closest thing I could find was a GTX 770 (~$330) which still nets an average and minimum fps above 60 fps (depending on which benchmarks you're looking at; depending on the drivers and patches used and other hardware aside from the GPU, the results can vary quite a bit, but still the GTX 770 is almost always in/above the 60 fps range) and that's at ultra settings at 1920x1080.
If you're curious about the far more demanding Battlefield 4, you'll easily get far above 60 fps with a GTX 780 Ti, but not so easily with a GTX 770 I believe.
UPDATE: As for which brand is best, there's usually not a huge difference. I think the three best for Nvidia in no particular order are Gigabyte, ASUS, and EVGA, and perhaps MSI somewhere behind. For AMD, it's about the same but throw Sapphire towards the top.
UPDATE 2: Be warned, also, that Ghosts is a good example of how much triple A publishers like Activision don't care for PC gamers at all (or for any players it seems). The game is terribly ported, requiring 6 GB of RAM just to run even though it doesn't even take up 4 GBs of actual RAM when running! (This issue may have been patched, iirc), and from what I hear the benchmarks are very unstable. One playthrough of a level has reports of getting 60 fps, and yet another playthrough of the same level with the same hardware and software can get an average of 45 fps. Personally, this doesn't concern me because I think CoD is the spawn of Satan and must die since they're thousands of far better games out there, but whatever. That's just for you to be aware, but don't be concerned too much since both official and unofficial updates to the game should improve its technical issues greatly.