Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Do you really have to buy high-end graphcis cards? Need help with this build...

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • EVGA
  • Graphics
  • Build
  • Geforce
  • Nvidia
  • Gtx
  • GPUs
  • Video Editing
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 19, 2014 9:38:37 PM

Well so I am looking into build my PC and so far here are the specs:

Intel Core i5-4670k
Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
ASRock Z87M Extreme 4
Kingston Fury Black Series 8GB DDR3-1600
Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB
EVGA GeForce GTX 760 TI Superclocked
XFX 650W 80+ Bronze Certified
Samsung SH-224DB Optical Drive
Microsoft Windows 8.1 64-Bit (OEM)
ASUS VS239H-P 23"
Corsair K30
Corsair M40
Corsair HS30

Well so the problem right now I am having is with the GPU. I want to lower the cost of this PC. I will be gaming and recording the game play with nVIDIA Shadowplay and then do some editing with the clips. I watched videos on YouTube where people are using a 750 TI and playing BF4 with out a problem but recently someone told me that the 750 Ti will not be able to complete those tasks. Is this true? Also will it be better to go with a 760 right now and upgrade to a 770 or a 750 ti and upgrade to the 770 later.

More about : buy high end graphcis cards build

May 19, 2014 9:41:07 PM

What resolution will you be gaming at? At 1080p i think a 750 ti would be fine. The only thing with the 750 ti is you can't sli them. That 760 ti would do everything you need it to do at 1080p as well.
m
0
l
May 19, 2014 9:43:26 PM

Airm3n said:
What resolution will you be gaming at? At 1080p i think a 750 ti would be fine. The only thing with the 750 ti is you can't sli them. That 760 ti would do everything you need it to do at 1080p as well.


Yeah I am going to be gaming at 1080p. As for SLI, I really don't think that I want to run multiple monitors (ill just run single card for single monitor.)
m
0
l
Related resources
May 19, 2014 9:52:44 PM

I think you'd be fine with a 750 ti honestly you might not be able to crank the AA settings to max but i think it would run just fine on a single monitor at 1080p. Going to a 760 probably won't give you too much of a noticeable increase unless you sli two of them. Going to a single 770 would net you the biggest gain. All in all i'd say it depends how much details you have to turn up on the game as it is quite demanding.
m
0
l
May 19, 2014 10:25:26 PM

Airm3n said:
I think you'd be fine with a 750 ti honestly you might not be able to crank the AA settings to max but i think it would run just fine on a single monitor at 1080p. Going to a 760 probably won't give you too much of a noticeable increase unless you sli two of them. Going to a single 770 would net you the biggest gain. All in all i'd say it depends how much details you have to turn up on the game as it is quite demanding.


Honestly I do not mind turning settings down from ultra to high or even medium....I just want a smooth okay looking FPS.....that I can record gameplay at the same time.
m
0
l
May 19, 2014 10:53:33 PM

I haven't tried shadowplay but from what I've read on it it shouldn't cause you any noticeable hiccups in gameplay while running. I would buy the video card to play the games you want and not even consider shadowplay as anything extra to the video card.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b Î Nvidia
May 19, 2014 11:16:40 PM

U will get 7-10% reduced fps using shadowplay, I think 750ti is better for now and then upgrade later.
m
0
l
a b 4 Gaming
a b Î Nvidia
May 20, 2014 1:47:22 AM

I would go for the 760, its significantly better than the 750 Ti and considering the other components in your pc its a better match.

If you want to save money, I would get the regular i5 4670/4570 and a cheaper B85 motherboard.
m
0
l

Best solution

a b 4 Gaming
a b Î Nvidia
May 20, 2014 2:21:44 AM

The difference is that the GTX 750 TI will require you to optimize your settings, while a GTX 760 or above will not.

You'll find that really the biggest reason people pay $500 for a video card instead of $150 isn't really because $500 is needed to max games, but rather because $500 lets them just hit the ultra preset and not worry about efficiency or anything specific.

People's definition of "ultra" changes. For example, in Metro Last Light, you can run it on "ultra" with 8xSSAA+AAA only on a GTX 780 TI or R9 290X. However, you can run it on "ultra" with 2xSSAA+AAA on a GTX 660, and "ultra" with just AAA on a GTX 650 TI. I put "ultra" in quotes because many people consider AA separate from the standard graphics options, since technically it never actually maxes and scales differently on different
resolutions. The difference in quality is very minor, especially considering to reach 8xSSAA you'll need to triple the price of the video card.

As another example, look at Skyrim. To run 4K texture mods, that requires a very strong GPU with a lot of VRAM. However, there's virtually no difference in quality at 1080p from 2K textures to 4K textures. So people who install 4K texture mods end up needing a GPU that costs twice as much just for a ~4% quality improvement.

I knew a guy on the Nexus once who forced driver HBAO+ and 8xSGSSAA in every game... Even when it didn't work correctly or the game already had AO and AA. Of course, it butchered his framerate so he spent his days online complaining about how his GTX 680 just wasn't strong enough. He even said you needed a GTX 780 to put Mass Effect 3 on ultra, which is simply ridiculous because I run it with all settings maxed at 100+ fps on my GTX 660. But he said it because he had basically broken his driver settings by trying to boost the game above ultra.

A lot of people do that; they run pointlessly specific effects in games and complain online when it doesn't work out like they want. There was another guy on the Nexus who ran a 4K Skyrim texture mod, but didn't use any anisotropic filtering. Every week practically he'd post updates on a silly 8k (8192x8192) texture mod he was making, because 4K still looked blurry. Eventually he decided you needed a card with 6GB of VRAM to get decent textures because of his apparently insane ignorance regarding anisotropic filtering.

That's the main benefit of getting a high-end video card; it allows people to jack everything up with no regard for actual noticeable quality or optimization.

So yes, a GTX 750 TI is probably fine for BF4... Possibly ultra, definitely high... As long as you're reasonably efficient and don't try to brute force unnoticeable or redundant effects in drivers or mods just for giggles.
Share
May 20, 2014 8:07:13 AM

Rationale said:
The difference is that the GTX 750 TI will require you to optimize your settings, while a GTX 760 or above will not.

You'll find that really the biggest reason people pay $500 for a video card instead of $150 isn't really because $500 is needed to max games, but rather because $500 lets them just hit the ultra preset and not worry about efficiency or anything specific.

People's definition of "ultra" changes. For example, in Metro Last Light, you can run it on "ultra" with 8xSSAA+AAA only on a GTX 780 TI or R9 290X. However, you can run it on "ultra" with 2xSSAA+AAA on a GTX 660, and "ultra" with just AAA on a GTX 650 TI. I put "ultra" in quotes because many people consider AA separate from the standard graphics options, since technically it never actually maxes and scales differently on different
resolutions. The difference in quality is very minor, especially considering to reach 8xSSAA you'll need to triple the price of the video card.

As another example, look at Skyrim. To run 4K texture mods, that requires a very strong GPU with a lot of VRAM. However, there's virtually no difference in quality at 1080p from 2K textures to 4K textures. So people who install 4K texture mods end up needing a GPU that costs twice as much just for a ~4% quality improvement.

I knew a guy on the Nexus once who forced driver HBAO+ and 8xSGSSAA in every game... Even when it didn't work correctly or the game already had AO and AA. Of course, it butchered his framerate so he spent his days online complaining about how his GTX 680 just wasn't strong enough. He even said you needed a GTX 780 to put Mass Effect 3 on ultra, which is simply ridiculous because I run it with all settings maxed at 100+ fps on my GTX 660. But he said it because he had basically broken his driver settings by trying to boost the game above ultra.

A lot of people do that; they run pointlessly specific effects in games and complain online when it doesn't work out like they want. There was another guy on the Nexus who ran a 4K Skyrim texture mod, but didn't use any anisotropic filtering. Every week practically he'd post updates on a silly 8k (8192x8192) texture mod he was making, because 4K still looked blurry. Eventually he decided you needed a card with 6GB of VRAM to get decent textures because of his apparently insane ignorance regarding anisotropic filtering.

That's the main benefit of getting a high-end video card; it allows people to jack everything up with no regard for actual noticeable quality or optimization.

So yes, a GTX 750 TI is probably fine for BF4... Possibly ultra, definitely high... As long as you're reasonably efficient and don't try to brute force unnoticeable or redundant effects in drivers or mods just for giggles.


Wow thanks for the info! And no I wont be doing any mods, And to get the most FPS out of the 750 ti I will be playing most games on high...do you think that I will be able to run the new games coming out in next year or so on high? or will i have to turn it down to medium
m
0
l
May 20, 2014 8:15:07 AM

Airm3n said:
I haven't tried shadowplay but from what I've read on it it shouldn't cause you any noticeable hiccups in gameplay while running. I would buy the video card to play the games you want and not even consider shadowplay as anything extra to the video card.


I use shadow play all the time, great for recording, compared to fraps or other recording services i see almost no drops in frames unlike fraps which can take up to 20fps out of my game.

I would consider a 760 if you want to record game play, if not a 750ti sould be fine.
m
0
l
May 21, 2014 9:41:47 AM

If you want I could run some benchmarks with a 750 ti I have running in a backup pc at the moment. Best I could do though as I don't own battlefield 4. Have it running in a 945 black at the moment. If anyone knows any benchmarks that would be comparable to battlefield 4 I would gladly run them.
m
0
l
May 21, 2014 2:18:28 PM

Airm3n said:
If you want I could run some benchmarks with a 750 ti I have running in a backup pc at the moment. Best I could do though as I don't own battlefield 4. Have it running in a 945 black at the moment. If anyone knows any benchmarks that would be comparable to battlefield 4 I would gladly run them.


Oh nice that would be great! I will PM you so we can keep in touch.
m
0
l
May 21, 2014 9:50:19 PM


This is with no antialiasing on



This is with antialiasing on
Max settings for all. You see two 750ti's there but only one is being used as you can't sli them. I have the second one in there for some extra monitor connections.
m
0
l
!