Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NEW Saphire R9 290 over asus direct cu ii gtx770 (overkill for my needs?)

Tags:
  • Graphics
  • GPUs
  • Nvidia
  • Gaming
  • ATI
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 12, 2014 2:52:10 PM

Hi guys

I am planning to buy the new Saphire tri x R9 290 on Friday but I want to ask you if it is an overkill for my system and go for an asus direct cu ii GTX 770 as I will save 100-120 £.
I have a i5 4670k, 8gb ram at a asus z87-pro.

For monitor I use a TV 32'' Sony bravia 3-4 years old model (720p ) ( but I am planning to upgrade in 1 month from now to a new nice one 27'' IPS 1080p 1920x1080).

So a R9 290 tri x will be an overkill for just only playing games at max settings?

Let me know what you think before I buy my gpu


*********** UPDATE**************

Asus GTX 770 Nvidia GeForce DirectCU II OC 2GB GDDR5 Graphics Card (PCI Express 3.0, HDMI, DVI-I, DVI-D, Display Port, 256 Bit, 3D Vision Ready, GPU Boost 2.0)

I found this for 240£ where Sapphire Radeon R9 290 Tri-X "BF4 Edition" 4096MB is priced at 380£ + BF4

So now we speaking about 140£ difference.
Saving 140£ now I can go in the near feature SLI with 2 gtx770 however I prefer a single gpu for the moment
So?

More about : saphire 290 asus direct gtx770 overkill

a b 4 Gaming
January 12, 2014 3:32:03 PM

Yes, for 1080p a 290 is overkill unless you require high levels of anti-aliasing. My GTX 770 works absolutely wonderful on 1080P gaming, and will max out everything except for anti-aliasing, which you don't need more than 2x or 4x for 1080p, and some games don't even look like you need it at all. Go for the 770 if you plan to stick with 1080p.
m
0
l
January 12, 2014 5:26:52 PM

hmm yes,Thats why I ask here. I know that both cards are good but if the ATI worth the + 100 pounds and if I will notice difference on gaming I can buy it. Otherwise I will stick with the cheaper (GTX770) and save some money.
Anyone else that can help me with this?
Otherwise I will wait till Friday 17th, and I ill see

Thanks!!!
m
0
l
Related resources
a b 4 Gaming
January 12, 2014 5:44:26 PM

eslaver said:
hmm yes,Thats why I ask here. I know that both cards are good but if the ATI worth the + 100 pounds and if I will notice difference on gaming I can buy it. Otherwise I will stick with the cheaper (GTX770) and save some money.
Anyone else that can help me with this?
Otherwise I will wait till Friday 17th, and I ill see

Thanks!!!


You will not notice any difference unless your new monitor is 120 HZ, but even then, the 290 still can't keep a consistent framerate of 120 FPS in order for it to be worth it. If I were you, I would go for the 770. Good luck.
m
0
l
January 12, 2014 6:12:35 PM

Well I would say the 290 has a ton more going for it and there is no question about longevity with 64 ROP, 512bit bus and 4GB buffer, the GTX 770 is last gen.

Also Mantle is another thing to consider if it lives up to the hype
m
0
l
January 12, 2014 6:20:42 PM

I suggest you get a gtx 780 - I had one however i upgraded to a 780 ti because it wasn't enough for 1440p however great for 1080p
m
0
l
January 13, 2014 3:10:20 AM

mr91 said:
I suggest you get a gtx 780 - I had one however i upgraded to a 780 ti because it wasn't enough for 1440p however great for 1080p


For example I can see that this GTX780 is at the same price as R9 290. So I guess If I am going to spent around 380 I shall stick to the new R9 290.
I guess even a 780 will be an overkill for my needs
The card at 380£ :
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 780 WindForce 3x OC Rev2.0 3072MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card (GV-N780OC-3GD)


m
0
l
January 13, 2014 4:05:24 AM

Asus GTX 770 Nvidia GeForce DirectCU II OC 2GB GDDR5 Graphics Card (PCI Express 3.0, HDMI, DVI-I, DVI-D, Display Port, 256 Bit, 3D Vision Ready, GPU Boost 2.0)

I found this for 240£ where Sapphire Radeon R9 290 Tri-X "BF4 Edition" 4096MB is priced at 380£ + BF4

So now we speaking about 140£ difference.
Saving 140£ now I can go in the near feature SLI with 2 gtx770 however I prefer a single gpu for the moment
So?
m
0
l
January 13, 2014 4:45:14 AM

eslaver said:
mr91 said:
I suggest you get a gtx 780 - I had one however i upgraded to a 780 ti because it wasn't enough for 1440p however great for 1080p


For example I can see that this GTX780 is at the same price as R9 290. So I guess If I am going to spent around 380 I shall stick to the new R9 290.
I guess even a 780 will be an overkill for my needs
The card at 380£ :
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 780 WindForce 3x OC Rev2.0 3072MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card (GV-N780OC-3GD)




A 290 over a 780..... but all you really need is the 770 at 1080p. I agree with everything Redeemer remarked on.

m
0
l
January 13, 2014 4:55:41 AM

Embra said:
eslaver said:
mr91 said:
I suggest you get a gtx 780 - I had one however i upgraded to a 780 ti because it wasn't enough for 1440p however great for 1080p


For example I can see that this GTX780 is at the same price as R9 290. So I guess If I am going to spent around 380 I shall stick to the new R9 290.
I guess even a 780 will be an overkill for my needs
The card at 380£ :
Gigabyte GeForce GTX 780 WindForce 3x OC Rev2.0 3072MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card (GV-N780OC-3GD)




A 290 over a 780..... but all you really need is the 770 at 1080p. I agree with everything Redeemer remarked on.



Nice, maybe if I stick with a Nvidia I will buy the new monitor of Asus with g-sync this year.
So I will be able to keep max-ultra settings at games with a GTX770 at present and for the next 1-2 years?
I just want to be able to play whatever game I like at maximum settings and enjoy my GPU.
I saw somewhere that 2gb GPU might not be enough for the next-gen games. Thats why I am keen to buy the new r9 290.

Again to sum up , the new R9 290 for £140 will not benefit me any better graphics for a 1080p gaming. Just some better anti-aliasing?

Thanks a lot and sorry for this. I just want to make myself sure before I buy my GPU since I see here lots of enthusiastic s waiting for the new R9 290

m
0
l
January 13, 2014 5:27:14 AM

770 + 1080p monitor sounds like a good plan. you should be good for 1-2 years. Higher resolutions benefit for more ram, multi-player on bf4 could too.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 13, 2014 8:34:42 AM

To be honest yes the GTX 770 is a great choice, and in my opinion you will be maxing out games for the next 2-3 years and then running at near max/high settings for 1-2 years after than before needing to upgrade. People over-exaggerate the amount of VRAM you need sometimes, up until a few months ago I used an APU with 512 mb VRAM and it ran most games comfortably on medium-high settings at 1366x768, and when I plugged it into my 1080p monitor I could enjoy those same games on low-medium settings at a slightly lower framerate. Keep in mind that is a laptop with an APU, DDR3 1600 MHz RAM, and 512 MB VRAM. You will be just fine.
m
0
l
January 13, 2014 8:41:03 AM

apcs13 said:
To be honest yes the GTX 770 is a great choice, and in my opinion you will be maxing out games for the next 2-3 years and then running at near max/high settings for 1-2 years after than before needing to upgrade. People over-exaggerate the amount of VRAM you need sometimes, up until a few months ago I used an APU with 512 mb VRAM and it ran most games comfortably on medium-high settings at 1366x768, and when I plugged it into my 1080p monitor I could enjoy those same games on low-medium settings at a slightly lower framerate. Keep in mind that is a laptop with an APU, DDR3 1600 MHz RAM, and 512 MB VRAM. You will be just fine.


Yes I was gonna order the 770 when I just saw the :

Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Rev2.0 WindForce 3X OC 3072MB WITH BF4 around £50 more.

And now I have this dilemma ,
go for the asus gtx770 2gb at 240£ with a potential to upgrade my monitor to an asus g-sync in the near future?
or stick with Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Rev2.0 WindForce 3X OC 3072MB and for £50 more the up coming amd mantle + BF4 + 1gb memory more than gtx770


m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 13, 2014 8:55:29 AM

eslaver said:
apcs13 said:
To be honest yes the GTX 770 is a great choice, and in my opinion you will be maxing out games for the next 2-3 years and then running at near max/high settings for 1-2 years after than before needing to upgrade. People over-exaggerate the amount of VRAM you need sometimes, up until a few months ago I used an APU with 512 mb VRAM and it ran most games comfortably on medium-high settings at 1366x768, and when I plugged it into my 1080p monitor I could enjoy those same games on low-medium settings at a slightly lower framerate. Keep in mind that is a laptop with an APU, DDR3 1600 MHz RAM, and 512 MB VRAM. You will be just fine.


Yes I was gonna order the 770 when I just saw the :

Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Rev2.0 WindForce 3X OC 3072MB WITH BF4 around £50 more.

And now I have this dilemma ,
go for the asus gtx770 2gb at 240£ with a potential to upgrade my monitor to an asus g-sync in the near future?
or stick with Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Rev2.0 WindForce 3X OC 3072MB and for £50 more the up coming amd mantle + BF4 + 1gb memory more than gtx770




The 770 beats the 280X in all areas but the memory buffer and memory amount. Go with the 770 unless you would want to get another 280X in the future and Crossfire, because that would trash most other things.
m
0
l
January 13, 2014 10:43:00 AM

You will not able to max out games like crysis 3 and average 60 fps with a gtx 770. If you don't play games like crysis 3 and Metro last light and tomb raider with tress fx you should be fine with a gtx 770
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 13, 2014 10:56:40 AM

mr91 said:
You will not able to max out games like crysis 3 and average 60 fps with a gtx 770. If you don't play games like crysis 3 and Metro last light and tomb raider with tress fx you should be fine with a gtx 770


If you max out Crysis 3 on a reference clocked GTX 770 you will get about 37-44p frames per second average. I saw a video where a guy maxed it out on reference clock speeds recording with fraps and got a 37 fps average on max settings besides 4xAA and got 37 fps, so if you don't use FRAPS it will surely be better. I can actually max out Metro Last Light besides with SSAA and even Tomb Raider with TressFX and usually get over 60FPS, and while there are dips occasionally, it's usually nothing noticeable and worth the sacrifice. However I usually max Tomb Raider besides TressFX and see averages of usually 80+ FPS. Your results may be different depending on your card, because my core clock is 1280 MHz when in game.
m
0
l
January 13, 2014 2:27:04 PM

A GTX 770 or a 280x will suffice for 1080p, go for whatever is cheaper
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
January 13, 2014 4:15:15 PM

redeemer said:
A GTX 770 or a 280x will suffice for 1080p, go for whatever is cheaper


+1. I originally got a 280X but it was a broken model and there are thousands of complaints of DOA R9 series GPU's, so if you are willing to risk your time and money go ahead. However you will most likely only be risking shipping costs, not the card's costs as they will most likely refund you.
m
0
l
!