Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Choosing A GPU is giving me a headache!!! Some help needed choosing.

Tags:
  • 270x
  • 280x
  • msi gaming
  • Graphics
  • gtx 760
  • hawk
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 26, 2013 3:33:36 PM

Hi there,

So after building my own PC I have been stuck between choosing a few cards.

1. MSI HAWK 270X (Hawk as it allows voltage control = better OC) for £160
2. MSI Gaming 760 for £180/190
3. MSI Gaming 280x for £220

Those are the absolute lowest prices i could find. The 7950 7970 and 670 are horribly over priced in uk as far as i could see so they are out of the option.

I game at 1080p and I personally believe 2gb is enough for next gen gaming.
My questions is, is it worth saving the cash, maybe getting an SSD and going for the 270X Hawk? Will that be enough to play all next gen games on High (ultra would be nice but not needed) with AA off? Have one monitor and will stick to one.

As far as i can tell, the 270x when overclocked gets to about stock 760 speeds. Whereas 760 overclocked matches about 280X speeds. And 280X only OC's a little bit? I kinda just want to get a 760 but saving £30 would be nice.

So What do you guys think? Perhaps its even worth waiting for prices to go down? Is that likely to happen anytime soon? Also if you find any particularly good deals on any card please let me know :) 

Oh and i dont care about any of the free game bundles.

My spec:

i5 3570K OC'd to 4.6Ghz
Corsair CX600W PSU
8GB Corsair LP DDR3 Ram
A Pz77 something MSI motherboard. Cant remember exact name but its a good one :) 

Thanks in advance!

More about : choosing gpu giving headache needed choosing

December 26, 2013 3:38:28 PM

I have the 7870 GHz which is approximately equal to the 270X. I've been able to max most games, with AC4 and BF4 being played at high/ultra with AA turned down. You will be okay with the 270x, but I'd get the 280x for future proofing.
m
0
l
December 26, 2013 3:39:55 PM

Well the 280x is by far the highest performance out of all of those and isn't comparable to a 760, no matter what OC. A 270x or 760 will not currently run a lot of games at 1080p on ultra, so it will be worse and worse at 1080p. High with no AA should be fine for a while. If you aren't going to go for the 280x, then I suggest the 270x + an SSD. 2GB will be fine for high for a long time, but a select few games are already pushing 2gb at 1080p on ultra with everything enabled.
m
0
l
Related resources
December 26, 2013 3:46:18 PM

woltej1 said:
Well the 280x is by far the highest performance out of all of those and isn't comparable to a 760, no matter what OC. A 270x or 760 will not currently run a lot of games at 1080p on ultra, so it will be worse and worse at 1080p. High with no AA should be fine for a while. If you aren't going to go for the 280x, then I suggest the 270x + an SSD. 2GB will be fine for high for a long time, but a select few games are already pushing 2gb at 1080p on ultra with everything enabled.


Firstly thanks for your reply's.

Im pretty sure that a 760 OC can match a 280X's Stock speed from what i can gather.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/07/04/msi-geforce...

On there it seems to get very very close to the 770 (which is a card a tinsy tinsy bit better than the 280X)

Planning to upgrade card again in 2 years.
m
0
l
December 26, 2013 3:48:03 PM

Its 270x<760<280x(<770)
If you want the best 280x/770 is what you need, even with 1440p potential
I would get the 760 over the 270x, the performance differerance is noticeable
m
0
l
December 26, 2013 3:49:46 PM

Get the evga gtx 760 instead. Got the best air coolers on the market at the moment and evga is awesome
m
0
l
December 26, 2013 3:55:08 PM

EvgaLover said:
Get the evga gtx 760 instead. Got the best air coolers on the market at the moment and evga is awesome


The evga card is £200 and to be honest I have a real soft spot for the MSI Gamings design + its £10-20 cheaper and Matches my motherboard. Even if it is a better card (I personally think the MSI card is better but thats my Opinion).

Oh and to be honest if in a years time my card can play the latest graphically intense game at at least 40fps on high i will be fairly happy.
m
0
l
December 26, 2013 3:56:09 PM

About the SSD question: I'd leave the SSD for later. It's not as important as the graphics card when gaming, and SSD prices will come down anyway. For now get the best graphics card you can afford.



m
0
l
December 26, 2013 4:00:30 PM

Depends what you play. For instance, if you play BF4 which switches maps often, I cut down my map loads from 3 minutes to 10 seconds.
m
0
l
December 26, 2013 4:05:21 PM

aevm said:
About the SSD question: I'd leave the SSD for later. It's not as important as the graphics card when gaming, and SSD prices will come down anyway. For now get the best graphics card you can afford.

Hell till i sold my old computer a few months ago I had been using a GTX 460 (what a loud little so and so that was) and a 2.2 intel quad core. That 460 still played games like Bioshock Infinite on high at like 40 ish frames. Most games I tried with that card worked well enough for me. It did mean turning to medium on a lot of games though.



True I can happily live without an SSD for a while. In an ideal world i would pay £150 for a graphics card and save the rest of my cash for non pc things. In actuality i have £260 to spend and Im more of a nintendo gamer. Every now and again I will go to pc to play a particular game i want to try out while having the luxury of far superior graphics and performance to consoles. So I dont know, good example is I have been keen to try out Splinter Cell Blacklist, Grid 2 etc this year.
m
0
l
December 27, 2013 9:23:05 AM

Any more thoughts?
m
0
l
!