Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Sapphire r9 280x Toxic vs Gainward Gtx 770 phantom 4gb

Tags:
  • Gtx
  • Gainward
  • Sapphire
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 4, 2014 12:31:08 PM

Hello guys , Greeetings :)  Which card do you think is better ? Toxic costs 39000-40000 here while gainward gtx 770 phantom 4gb cost 46000 , So r9 280x toxic is 15 % cheaper than gainward gtx 770 4gb. Which one would you recommend for watch dogs , hitman absolution , crysis 3 .

More about : sapphire 280x toxic gainward gtx 770 phantom 4gb

September 4, 2014 12:46:16 PM

Benchmarks here and you make your own mind , IMO I think the 280x is a better buy but that's just me

Watchdogs Ultra :


Hitman Absolution :


Crysis 3 :


m
0
l
September 4, 2014 12:50:27 PM

What do you think . Does sapphire r9 280x toxic still has any artifacting or flickering issue left ? Or any driver issue ? I wont be overclocking it So would it run of 100 % load even if i am not overclocking
m
0
l
Related resources
September 4, 2014 12:58:34 PM

Ahsankhaan said:
What do you think . Does sapphire r9 280x toxic still has any artifacting or flickering issue left ? Or any driver issue ? I wont be overclocking it So would it run of 100 % load even if i am not overclocking


The Toxic version is the top of the line in sapphire line of products , I think all the drivers issues have been fixed by now.
m
0
l
September 4, 2014 1:00:53 PM

i'D GO 770, less issues imo
m
0
l
September 4, 2014 7:25:42 PM

What about asus dc2 top r9 280x.?
m
0
l

Best solution

September 4, 2014 8:29:38 PM

Its hard nowadays to get a un-biased opinion however , Its really down to what games do you intend to play and since the games you want to play favors the 280x as concluded from the benchmarks that I've posted and also the 280x is cheaper then there's no reason to go to the 770 unless you want some peripheral from their's otherwise the 280x is more suited to your intended games. That's not to say that the 770 is worse but they are interchangeable not what others make it seem like that the 770 is simply better.

Here are the benchmarks again :







Its clear that Hitman absolution is an AMD Title

Crysis 3



Even Pulls ahead of the 780 on this occasion on 1080p but it differs according to other benchmarks , the 280X and the 770 are interchangeable according to the website of the benchmark but the frame variance is very stable on the 280x on 1080p



So Crysis shows that they are very similar , the factory 770 isn't faster than any superclocked 280x in here

Watch Dogs : ( very similar , its within the margin of error )



So Conclusion time ( Unbiased ) :

Reasons to consider the 770 : 1- Less TDP
2- Runs cooler
3- Less driver issues
4- Shadowplay and other Nvidia's amazing peripherals
5- A very solid card with lots of Vram ( 4gb version ) sufficient for running higher resolutions
6- Comes with Borderlands the Pre-Sequel ( very tempting for me as I am a big fan of the series )

Reasons to consider the 280x :
1- Pulls ahead in your specified games
2- Cheaper
3- Looks better
4- Price to performance is very good
5- Comes with 3 free games
6- The Toxic Version is the top of the line from Sapphire
7- Crossfired on cheaper Motherboards.

Hope I've made it clear for you , its up to you to choose what suits your needs ;) 

Share
September 4, 2014 8:43:46 PM

The GTX 770 is just slightly better, but Naturally comes with a higher price.

@TopLuca, im not so sure about some of those benchmarks, they look a bit iffy.

The verdict? Save and get a 280x. No noticable performance difference, and cheaper.
m
0
l
September 4, 2014 8:53:32 PM

Mac266 said:
The GTX 770 is just slightly better, but Naturally comes with a higher price.

@TopLuca, im not so sure about some of those benchmarks, they look a bit iffy.

The verdict? Save and get a 280x. No noticable performance difference, and cheaper.


Tomshardware isn't iffy neither is etik , I didn't get these benchmarks myself :D 

My verdict was very clear and very unbiased.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 12:41:15 AM

thanks all for sharing ur precious thoughts . i appreciate every reply. One last question , does r9 280x toxic still have artifacts or flickering issue and if i am not overclocking it does it still run on 100 % load ?
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 12:44:45 AM

Ahsankhaan said:
thanks all for sharing ur precious thoughts . i appreciate every reply. One last question , does r9 280x toxic still have artifacts or flickering issue and if i am not overclocking it does it still run on 100 % load ?


Nope , after the latest driver updates AMD cards are running with less issues .
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 12:54:59 AM

just installed a 280x. this card will not work properly without radeonpro installed. i'd suggest you get a 770 instead.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 12:56:53 AM

wh3resmycar said:
just installed a 280x. this card will not work properly without radeonpro installed. i'd suggest you get a 770 instead.


what 280x did you get and what is the model of it ? Have you installed the latest drivers ? Do you have the sufficient PSU ? Lots of things in the mix , the card isn't to blame most of the time , its usually the user's fault.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 1:01:05 AM

lol my fault? for pete's sake i have to use radeon pro to stop it from running @ 1100mhz core running a ps2 console port (re4 hd edition). the card can actually pull 60 fps even @ 500mhz but the fact that i have to use a 3rd party software to do it irks me.

i know my way around graphics cards thank you sir. i don't have problem any problem with the performance, just the aftermarket support is soo AMD.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 1:03:59 AM

There's a reason a program like that exists , I am not defending AMD but some of the blame is unjustified.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 1:07:00 AM

This pretty much sums up why the artifacts used to happen : Any card will get that artifacting issue if they run at an unstable speed. Graphics card manufacturers like to make their cards run faster than the reference (AMD set) speed so that the product looks superior. And while it is their responsibility to ensure the cards can run stable at their set speed, it seems certain manufacturers of late have been shoddy in the QC process.

And it seems the R9 280X has the highest failure rate because the R9 280X GPU is actually the same as the older HD 7970. Except that now the chips at 'reference' are essentially overclocked 7970s, so when manufacturers overclock beyond reference they are pushed to extremes and easily become unstable which is what you are seeing now.

Nonetheless the R9 280X is still a good card and it is up to luck if you receive an unstable one. No matter what card you buy be it from AMD or Nvidia you will stand a chance to draw the short stick.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 1:07:52 AM

yup the reason is AMD don't wanna do it. anyway like the OP, i have the same dilemma, the gap in price with a 770 and 280x is huge but overall the performance is good. there are other issues with the drivers as well like image scaling and OG downsampling which is quite easy using a geforce card.

one more feature lacking in CCC is dynamic Vsync. you'll really need radeonpro to fully get everything out of this card.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 1:08:56 AM

wh3resmycar said:
yup the reason is AMD don't wanna do it. anyway like the OP, i have the same dilemma, the gap in price with a 770 and 280x is huge but overall the performance is good. there are other issues with the drivers as well like image scaling and OG downsampling which is quite easy using a geforce card.

one more feature lacking in CCC is dynamic Vsync. you'll really need radeonpro to fully get everything out of this card.


Thankfully it exists ;) 
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 1:10:23 AM

TopLuca said:
This pretty much sums up why the artifacts used to happen : Any card will get that artifacting issue if they run at an unstable speed. Graphics card manufacturers like to make their cards run faster than the reference (AMD set) speed so that the product looks superior. And while it is their responsibility to ensure the cards can run stable at their set speed, it seems certain manufacturers of late have been shoddy in the QC process.

And it seems the R9 280X has the highest failure rate because the R9 280X GPU is actually the same as the older HD 7970. Except that now the chips at 'reference' are essentially overclocked 7970s, so when manufacturers overclock beyond reference they are pushed to extremes and easily become unstable which is what you are seeing now.

Nonetheless the R9 280X is still a good card and it is up to luck if you receive an unstable one. No matter what card you buy be it from AMD or Nvidia you will stand a chance to draw the short stick.



nowhere did i mention it being "unstable". nowhere did i mention "artifact".
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 1:11:09 AM

wh3resmycar said:
TopLuca said:
This pretty much sums up why the artifacts used to happen : Any card will get that artifacting issue if they run at an unstable speed. Graphics card manufacturers like to make their cards run faster than the reference (AMD set) speed so that the product looks superior. And while it is their responsibility to ensure the cards can run stable at their set speed, it seems certain manufacturers of late have been shoddy in the QC process.

And it seems the R9 280X has the highest failure rate because the R9 280X GPU is actually the same as the older HD 7970. Except that now the chips at 'reference' are essentially overclocked 7970s, so when manufacturers overclock beyond reference they are pushed to extremes and easily become unstable which is what you are seeing now.

Nonetheless the R9 280X is still a good card and it is up to luck if you receive an unstable one. No matter what card you buy be it from AMD or Nvidia you will stand a chance to draw the short stick.



nowhere did i mention it being "unstable". nowhere did i mention "artifact".


That was for the OP , not for you sir.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 2:53:37 AM

is Corsair vs650 Ok for R9 280x Toxic ? I wont overclock . How a card reaches its full load by overclocking or running it continously?
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 4:50:53 AM

i'm running it on a corsair gs600, not quite sure if the vs650 is a tier higher than the GS though, in any case 650 watts should be fine.
m
0
l
!