Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

XFX Radeon R9 270X OR EVGA GeForce GTX 760

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 24, 2014 12:46:16 PM

I am looking to build my first desktop computer this summer and I am having difficulty deciding on a graphics card. I am deciding between the XFX Radeon R9 270X and the EVGA GeForce GTX 760. They are both priced around $250 (today) which is my budget for a video card. I am wondering if the 4GB 270X will be more future proof despite having a slightly lower clock speed. I also understand that EVGA is very well respected brand but I haven't heard of XFX. Any guidance as to which one is better or if there are even better ones would be appreciated. Also, I plan to use an i7-4770 processor for the build. I have added the links to the two GPUs below.

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/xfx-video-card-r9270xedfc
https://pcpartpicker.com/part/evga-video-card-02gp42765...

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2014 12:49:51 PM

if they are both the same price the gtx760 easy, its much faster and on a higher tier than the 270x.

also if you plan to use an i7-4770 you would be much better off gaming wise to drop to an i5-4670k and use a gtx770 or an r9-280x, whichever one is cheaper.

4gb of vram wont make a difference unless you plan to crossfire as a card as low as the 270x alone doesn't have the gpu horsepower to max out any game that will cross the 2gb vram, you would need very high levels of antialiasing and the 270x just cant handle that in a heavy graphical game anyways.
Share
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2014 12:49:59 PM

Gtx 760 is better and the 4gb of vram won't help either card due to small memory bus.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 272 4 Gaming
a c 330 À AMD
a c 1362 U Graphics card
April 24, 2014 12:50:03 PM

The GTX is more powerful for almost the same price so no question!
m
0
l
April 24, 2014 12:51:49 PM

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1043?vs=1038

There are some head to head fps benchmarks that should help you out. Personally, I have the EVGA GTX 760 and I think it's fantastic. EVGA has a great warranty as well.

In regards to 2gb vs 4gb. What resolution are you going to be playing at? You only want the 4gb if you're playing at resolutions over 1080p via multiple monitors. You'll see no improvements or "future proofing" going 4gb over 2gb if you're playing at 1080p on one monitor.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2014 1:10:05 PM

TheConsiderateIlliterate said:

In regards to 2gb vs 4gb. What resolution are you going to be playing at? You only want the 4gb if you're playing at resolutions over 1080p via multiple monitors. You'll see no improvements or "future proofing" going 4gb over 2gb if you're playing at 1080p on one monitor.


This is in fact wrong, more VRAM will allow for better quality textures IN GAME...it is said that many future games to come will have some high resolutions textures settings that will make good use of extra VRAM even at 1080p resolution...and running higher quality texture in games does not require more processing power from the GPU, only more room to store those high quality textures in the VRAM buffer of the graphics card, so a card like a r9 270X is indeed powerful enough to make good use of that extra 2gb of vram at 1080p...here a little explanation on that:




Now that being said, i do not recommand the r9 270x over the 760 for the same price, don't get me wrong, the 760 has more processing power and despite having only 2gb of vram will offer a better gaming experience.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2014 1:25:40 PM

skyrim is one of the only vram exceptions as i personally did have a 2gb 670 and swapped it for a 3gb 7950 and it solved all my problems. though i was modded out pretty heavily and was on a 1440p monitor.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b À AMD
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2014 1:47:09 PM

BF4 ULTRA at 1080p will reach 2.1gb with 10% of supersampling, titanfall need 3.7gb for insane texture settings...as the games progress they constantly use better and better texture packs within the game itself with higher and higher resolutions and details in them, making them heavier thus requiring more VRAM to play the game at high settings...this is what makes new games and modded games looks better it is because they use better textures and this require more and more VRAM...but as i said it has nothing to do with processing power, for example running BF4 on low texture setting (NOT Anti-aliasing this is completely different, i'm talking texture resolution and texture filtering here) versus BF4 ultra texture settings the performance difference is only 1 or 2 FPS but the VRAM usage difference is major.

One good thing to note too is that the new consoles come's with an 8gb pool of DDR5 shared memory for the system and graphics ressources, so for example those consoles could use 4gb as standard RAM to store a game in use and use the other 4gb as VRAM for the GPU and display some very high quality textures, and you know what this is on awaiting to happen right on the next corner...you will quickly see new games with better and better textures hitting the market pretty fast in the upcoming months and years...

So if you ask me, yes defenetly a 4gb card is a good investment and is defenetly more future proof in the way that it will allow the user to display higher quality textures in his favorite games for a longer period of time...even at 1080p and even on a weaker card, as long as it can play games at 1080p with okay framerates it will be able to use high quality textures and high quality texture filtering (again not ANTI-ALIASING this is not the same, it kills GPU processing power...) i'm talking anistropic filtering, or texture filtering and texture quality here, don't get me wrong.
m
0
l
!