GTX 770 + 120GB SSD vs R9 290
Tags:
-
Power Supplies
-
Storage
-
CPUs
-
Graphics
- Gtx
-
SSD
-
Graphics Cards
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 6:03:26 AM
Hello there.
I wanted some help with this matter. I'm really splited between getting one of these two options. I understand most of the pros and cons of each choice, though I wanted an honest opinion from you!
Typing in a phone is frustrating so I'll end it here.
Any input is appreciated!
I wanted some help with this matter. I'm really splited between getting one of these two options. I understand most of the pros and cons of each choice, though I wanted an honest opinion from you!
Typing in a phone is frustrating so I'll end it here.
Any input is appreciated!
More about : gtx 770 120gb ssd 290
-
Reply to JP7PlaysMC
-
Reply to RobCrezz
m
2
l
MeteorsRaining
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
254
à
CPUs
a
c
154
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:07:05 AM
Related resources
- GTX 770 2GB SLI vs AMD R9 290X - Forum
- Whats cpu to choose? AND r9 290 vs gtx 770 - Forum
- GTX 770 4GB vs. R9 290 vs. GTX 780 - Forum
- Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X vs. EVGA GTX 770 Classified? - Forum
- Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X vs. EVGA GTX 770 Classified? - Forum
Joeteoh99
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
122
à
CPUs
a
c
83
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:08:38 AM
If you were a gamer and like to record game plays. Then the Asus 770 is the way to go. You can take advantage of Shadowplay which is powered by Nividia to record game plays for free as it comes with the card.
If I was to compare the 2 cards, the R9 290 will be better. However if you play on a single monitor there wouldn't much difference in terms if FPS. The GTX 770 manage it get a consistent 70-80+FPS on Battlefield 4 on ultra. Which is really good.
And the 120GB SSD will come in handy when an OS and two games is installed. Reduced boot times and loading times between maps too.
Hope this helps you out mate.
If I was to compare the 2 cards, the R9 290 will be better. However if you play on a single monitor there wouldn't much difference in terms if FPS. The GTX 770 manage it get a consistent 70-80+FPS on Battlefield 4 on ultra. Which is really good.
And the 120GB SSD will come in handy when an OS and two games is installed. Reduced boot times and loading times between maps too.
Hope this helps you out mate.
-
Reply to Joeteoh99
m
1
l
i7Baby
a
c
120
)
Power supply
a
c
128
G
Storage
a
c
400
à
CPUs
a
c
245
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:08:43 AM
envy14tpe
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
91
à
CPUs
a
b
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:23:29 AM
I did the GPU non SSD route, and I wished I had added a SSD from the get go. However, the prices were much higher 2 years ago. Now things have changed. You can get a really excellent 120GB SSD for $80.
If you are going to game at 1080p then the 770 + SSD is the winner. 290 is excellent but overkill for 1080p gaming.
If you are going to game at 1080p then the 770 + SSD is the winner. 290 is excellent but overkill for 1080p gaming.
-
Reply to envy14tpe
m
0
l
JackNaylorPE
a
c
154
)
Power supply
a
c
128
G
Storage
a
c
251
à
CPUs
a
c
247
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:26:17 AM
The 290- averages about 13% faster outta the box and, in my experiences, overclocks about 7 - 12%.....the 770 overclocks about 20 - 24%. So whether you will be overclocking the cards has a big impact here.
Costs are all over the place lately.... 290 is $380 - $430 ..... the 770 is $320 to $370. The odd thing is, of the companies that offer both, the MSI ones have the best coolers and they have the cheapest 770 and the most expensive 290.
But ya gotta watch prices every day and, of course, this depends where you are. If in US, I'd take the Asus 780 at $420 + the SSD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
The Asus 780 is quite underclocked in the box bit overclocks very well.....my box has 2 of them running at a 26% OC. Overclocked it tops the 290x overclocked.
If you are using a AIO water cooler, I'd suggest another option. For another $20, you can have it water cooled.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Used with the Swiftech H220-X, which is not a closed but an expandable system.
http://www.swiftech.com/H220-X.aspx
You can start out just running the water cooling on the CPU and leave the GFX card on air. Later on, or right from the beginning, you can cool the GFX card with the addition of just two pieces of tubing and fittings, tho I'd add an extra radiator to keep things nice and chilly.
Costs are all over the place lately.... 290 is $380 - $430 ..... the 770 is $320 to $370. The odd thing is, of the companies that offer both, the MSI ones have the best coolers and they have the cheapest 770 and the most expensive 290.
But ya gotta watch prices every day and, of course, this depends where you are. If in US, I'd take the Asus 780 at $420 + the SSD
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
The Asus 780 is quite underclocked in the box bit overclocks very well.....my box has 2 of them running at a 26% OC. Overclocked it tops the 290x overclocked.
If you are using a AIO water cooler, I'd suggest another option. For another $20, you can have it water cooled.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Used with the Swiftech H220-X, which is not a closed but an expandable system.
http://www.swiftech.com/H220-X.aspx
You can start out just running the water cooling on the CPU and leave the GFX card on air. Later on, or right from the beginning, you can cool the GFX card with the addition of just two pieces of tubing and fittings, tho I'd add an extra radiator to keep things nice and chilly.
-
Reply to JackNaylorPE
m
0
l
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 6:36:02 AM
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 6:37:59 AM
i7Baby
a
c
120
)
Power supply
a
c
128
G
Storage
a
c
400
à
CPUs
a
c
245
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:39:27 AM
JackNaylorPE
a
c
154
)
Power supply
a
c
128
G
Storage
a
c
251
à
CPUs
a
c
247
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:40:29 AM
envy14tpe said:
I did the GPU non SSD route, and I wished I had added a SSD from the get go. However, the prices were much higher 2 years ago. Now things have changed. You can get a really excellent 120GB SSD for $80. If you are going to game at 1080p then the 770 + SSD is the winner. 290 is excellent but overkill for 1080p gaming.
Then and now, ya should look into a SSHD. I'm doing less and less SSD builds of late for two reasons.
1. Budget conscious users with 120/128 GB SSDs keep bringing systems in to have me "clean the C:\ Drives" and lose the advantage of the SSD for most of their games which are stored on the HD.
2. The advantage of the SSD over the SSD is so small that it's not observable ..... SSD boots in 15.6 seconds to the SSHDs 16.5. We did an experiment int he office here with two laptops, one with SSD + HD and one with SSHD, no one can tell them apart w/o running a benchmark or using a stopwatch.
While the 770 more than does the job in most games, it struggles a bit in others.... 37 fps in Crysis 3, 46 in Tomb Raider, 49 in Far Cry 3 can hardly be called overkill at 1920 x 1080 ....especially not if using a 144 Hz monitor and playing in 3D
-
Reply to JackNaylorPE
m
0
l
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 6:40:37 AM
envy14tpe
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
91
à
CPUs
a
b
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:40:49 AM
Joeteoh99
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
122
à
CPUs
a
c
83
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:42:58 AM
MeteorsRaining
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
254
à
CPUs
a
c
154
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:44:49 AM
JP7PlaysMC said:
MeteorsRunning, If I were to buy any of the GPUs they'd be the Asus direct cu models, the SSD would be the Samsung Eco 120 GB and the PSU the XFX 750 watts core edition. The processor is the I5 4690 so I think it'll do: P.Thanks a lot for the help!
Now there're some things to ponder upon:
If you plan on 4GB 770, then leave the spoiler, or if you plan otherwise, see it:
Spoiler
2GB VRAM will be good for sometime now but will suffocate as games become more and more graphics (particularly texture) intensive, and will be not really ideal for resolutions higher than FHD (like 2k/ 4k). I'd recommend a 4GB version in first place.
Why take 290?
Spoiler
R9 290's 4GB VRAM will be good enough for years to come on FHD, and will help a lot in higher resolutions too. Add to that the fact that 290 is better in gaming than 770, I think I said what I'd prefer, since you can buy the SSD a couple of months later when you feel fuller in pocket.
Your CPU is good enough to handle and not bottleneck any given GPU, no worries there. Same with PSU, for any single GPU.
Why take 770 4GB + 120GB Samsung EVO over a better GPU?
Spoiler
Both cards given are very comfortable on ultra and will play any game thrown at them with solid FPS, so a SSD would be a nice inclusion instead of 5-10 FPS more with more power consumption. I'd throw my money at it as 770 is awesome OCer and will easily match 290's performance in real world scenarios.
Moreover,
Spoiler
The SSD will ensure faster boots and loading times on your fav. games, making the experience a whole lot better than HDD.
Some corrections:
I'm MeteorsRaining not running, its samsung EVO not eco
-
Reply to MeteorsRaining
m
0
l
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 6:44:51 AM
Joeteoh99
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
122
à
CPUs
a
c
83
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:47:47 AM
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 6:49:09 AM
gopher1369
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
b
à
CPUs
a
b
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:51:19 AM
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 6:53:53 AM
MeteorsRaining I'm so sorry for messing your name, I don't know how to quote in my mobile and typing is a pain. I was smart enough to change my phone language to English thoufh, otherwise it'd be impossible: P. I was thinking in buying the 2GB version of the GTX as the 4 one costs as much as the AMD. Quite a dilemma.
Thanks again!
Thanks again!
-
Reply to JP7PlaysMC
m
0
l
Joeteoh99
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
122
à
CPUs
a
c
83
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:56:04 AM
If you go with the R9 290. You miss out on an SSD for boot time and a few other features. And you will miss out in Shadowplay.
If you go with GTX 770. You will get many features and an SSD like you said. But the FPS may differ from a R9 290 depending on the game. It could be 10FPS or so less FPS than the R9 290.
A GTX 770 4GB isn't needed if you play on multiple monitors. But in a single just stay with the GTX 770 2GB. The R9 290 will still perform slightly better than the GTX 770.
http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=1859&gid2=...
But if you really like recording then go with GTX 770.
If you go with GTX 770. You will get many features and an SSD like you said. But the FPS may differ from a R9 290 depending on the game. It could be 10FPS or so less FPS than the R9 290.
A GTX 770 4GB isn't needed if you play on multiple monitors. But in a single just stay with the GTX 770 2GB. The R9 290 will still perform slightly better than the GTX 770.
http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=1859&gid2=...
But if you really like recording then go with GTX 770.
-
Reply to Joeteoh99
m
0
l
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 6:56:41 AM
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 7:00:21 AM
MeteorsRaining
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
254
à
CPUs
a
c
154
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:01:14 AM
4GB is the first thing I'd go after while buying a card today, leave the Nvidia and AMD. Check out the spoilers for VRAM in my previous post. If you can't do that as you're on cell, this's what's in it:
2GB VRAM will be good for sometime now but will suffocate as games become more and more graphics (particularly texture) intensive, and will be not really ideal for resolutions higher than FHD (like 2k/ 4k). I'd recommend a 4GB version in first place.
So 4GB is what I'd stress first, and 290 is what I'd recommend in that
2GB VRAM will be good for sometime now but will suffocate as games become more and more graphics (particularly texture) intensive, and will be not really ideal for resolutions higher than FHD (like 2k/ 4k). I'd recommend a 4GB version in first place.
So 4GB is what I'd stress first, and 290 is what I'd recommend in that
-
Reply to MeteorsRaining
m
0
l
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 7:01:30 AM
Joeteoh99
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
122
à
CPUs
a
c
83
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:02:42 AM
JP7PlaysMC said:
JoeTeoh99 I may take the time to say that the Nvidia comes with borderlands prequel, though the 2 GB may "kill" me in the future. Argghh.Yes if you want a some sort if future proof graphics card. Then I believe 4GB will do well as future games may need to utilise a large amount of VRAM. So good idea to plan ahead. It is much better than having a SLI 2GB, as as ingle stick should perform better.
-
Reply to Joeteoh99
m
0
l
JackNaylorPE
a
c
154
)
Power supply
a
c
128
G
Storage
a
c
251
à
CPUs
a
c
247
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:03:05 AM
JP7PlaysMC said:
I7Baby what brand for each card would you suggest me then? I always thought that the Asus gpus were very good, especially in terms of overclockability.Thanks!
Asus cards are very well made but way, way .... some would say grossly under clocked outta the box. However, with the Asus 780 price where it is today, it kinda makes it irrelevant. Of course Asus' pricing has to be passed on to the customer and not all vendors will follow suit, especially in countries with lower availability.
MSI has the best / quietest coolers in both AMD and nVidia lines.....sometimes as much as half as loud as the competition. MSI gets highest rating, ties for fastest clock, is quietest by far and is best overclocker.
MSI 770 - 9.8 rating / 28 dbA / 1137 MHz clock / 101.7 fps BF3 overclocked
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_770_TF_Gamin...
Gigabyte 770 - 9.6 rating / 33 dbA / 1137 MHz clock / 96 fps BF3 overclocked
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GeForce_GTX...
Asus 770 - 9.6 rating / 34 dbA / 1059 MHz clock / 96 fps BF3 overclocked
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_770...
-
Reply to JackNaylorPE
m
0
l
MeteorsRaining said:
4GB is the first thing I'd go after while buying a card today, leave the Nvidia and AMD. Check out the spoilers for VRAM in my previous post. If you can't do that as you're on cell, this's what's in it:2GB VRAM will be good for sometime now but will suffocate as games become more and more graphics (particularly texture) intensive, and will be not really ideal for resolutions higher than FHD (like 2k/ 4k). I'd recommend a 4GB version in first place.
So 4GB is what I'd stress first, and 290 is what I'd recommend in that
Worth bearing in mind, that the 4gb version of the 770 is pointless, unless you plan to use SLI. There is no performance benefit unfortunately.
-
Reply to RobCrezz
m
0
l
Joeteoh99
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
122
à
CPUs
a
c
83
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:04:22 AM
RobCrezz said:
MeteorsRaining said:
4GB is the first thing I'd go after while buying a card today, leave the Nvidia and AMD. Check out the spoilers for VRAM in my previous post. If you can't do that as you're on cell, this's what's in it:2GB VRAM will be good for sometime now but will suffocate as games become more and more graphics (particularly texture) intensive, and will be not really ideal for resolutions higher than FHD (like 2k/ 4k). I'd recommend a 4GB version in first place.
So 4GB is what I'd stress first, and 290 is what I'd recommend in that
Worth bearing in mind, that the 4gb version of the 770 is pointless, unless you plan to use SLI. There is no performance benefit unfortunately.
+1. Not many games will utilise a full 4GB unless you edit videos. Which actually could lead to him rendering the recorded gameplays he may use with Shadowplay.
-
Reply to Joeteoh99
m
0
l
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 7:05:47 AM
JackNaylorPE
a
c
154
)
Power supply
a
c
128
G
Storage
a
c
251
à
CPUs
a
c
247
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:05:49 AM
Agreed.....4Gb gives you nothing at 1920 x 1080. as you can see here, even in games that use more than 2 GB, it has absolutely no effect on performance. Unless you have two cards in SLI, you will not be able to observe any difference in any game and even this will require measuring tools and not be observable to the eyes unless your eyes are capable of telling the difference of 2 fps
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-teste...
At bigger resolutions ? Let's look at the test numbers....
Let’s only look at the games where there is more than a single FPS difference between the two GTX 770s.
Of those five games, two of them are unplayable at 5760×1080 although in these cases, 4GB GTX 770 SLI would finally make some sense over 2GB GTX 770 SLI. That only leaves Lost Planet 2 and two racing games that gain some advantage by choosing a single GTX 770 4GB card over the single GTX 770 2GB. And in Lost Planet 2, we were able to add even higher anti-aliasing – from 8xAA to CSAA8XQ and to CSAA32X – but the performance difference was greatest with 8xAA.
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-teste...
Quote:
There is one last thing to note with Max Payne 3: It would not normally allow one to set 4xAA at 5760×1080 with any 2GB card as it claims to require 2750MB. However, when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s.At bigger resolutions ? Let's look at the test numbers....
Quote:
We only start to see minimal differences at 5760×1080, and even so, there is rarely a frame or two difference. If we start to add even more AA, in most cases, the frame rates will drop to unplayable on both cards.Let’s only look at the games where there is more than a single FPS difference between the two GTX 770s.
Of those five games, two of them are unplayable at 5760×1080 although in these cases, 4GB GTX 770 SLI would finally make some sense over 2GB GTX 770 SLI. That only leaves Lost Planet 2 and two racing games that gain some advantage by choosing a single GTX 770 4GB card over the single GTX 770 2GB. And in Lost Planet 2, we were able to add even higher anti-aliasing – from 8xAA to CSAA8XQ and to CSAA32X – but the performance difference was greatest with 8xAA.
-
Reply to JackNaylorPE
m
0
l
MeteorsRaining
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
254
à
CPUs
a
c
154
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:05:51 AM
RobCrezz said:
MeteorsRaining said:
4GB is the first thing I'd go after while buying a card today, leave the Nvidia and AMD. Check out the spoilers for VRAM in my previous post. If you can't do that as you're on cell, this's what's in it:2GB VRAM will be good for sometime now but will suffocate as games become more and more graphics (particularly texture) intensive, and will be not really ideal for resolutions higher than FHD (like 2k/ 4k). I'd recommend a 4GB version in first place.
So 4GB is what I'd stress first, and 290 is what I'd recommend in that
Worth bearing in mind, that the 4gb version of the 770 is pointless, unless you plan to use SLI. There is no performance benefit unfortunately.
That's why I recommended 290 for 4GB
-
Reply to MeteorsRaining
m
0
l
Joeteoh99
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
122
à
CPUs
a
c
83
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:07:56 AM
JP7PlaysMC said:
Even with just one monitor? I'll take another look, but the SSD is something I really want to get. At this point I'll even look in getting the R9 with an SSD what brings another point: R9 290 vs GTX 770. 4 GB both with an SSD.You know what is the best choice if I was you but some people may not agree with this though.
Since you record gameplays and may edit them. I would go with the Nvidia GTX 770. It doesn't matter much now if an SSD doesn't come with the build for now as there is always time to upgrade the system.
-
Reply to Joeteoh99
m
0
l
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 7:09:00 AM
Joeteoh99
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
122
à
CPUs
a
c
83
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:10:55 AM
JP7PlaysMC said:
JackNaylor and the msi GTX 770 is the cheapest one.I would go with that if it is a 4GB. And it doesn't matter now if you don't get an SSD. It will mainly affect boot time and loading time between maps if a game is stored or installed on there.
Edit:
And I can't stop repeating that Shadowplay is great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKZa7Ci5JNc
-
Reply to Joeteoh99
m
0
l
MeteorsRaining
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
254
à
CPUs
a
c
154
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:11:40 AM
MeteorsRaining said:
RobCrezz said:
MeteorsRaining said:
4GB is the first thing I'd go after while buying a card today, leave the Nvidia and AMD. Check out the spoilers for VRAM in my previous post. If you can't do that as you're on cell, this's what's in it:2GB VRAM will be good for sometime now but will suffocate as games become more and more graphics (particularly texture) intensive, and will be not really ideal for resolutions higher than FHD (like 2k/ 4k). I'd recommend a 4GB version in first place.
So 4GB is what I'd stress first, and 290 is what I'd recommend in that
Worth bearing in mind, that the 4gb version of the 770 is pointless, unless you plan to use SLI. There is no performance benefit unfortunately.
That's why I recommended 290 for 4GB
You also recommended the 4gb version of the 770 in the earlyer post with the "spoilers"
-
Reply to RobCrezz
m
0
l
JackNaylorPE
a
c
154
)
Power supply
a
c
128
G
Storage
a
c
251
à
CPUs
a
c
247
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:13:18 AM
Cheapest here in US anyway (from my 1st post) .... Asus has the cheapest 780 tho and at that price, if the 290 is on the table at $380 - $430, I'd take the 780
Quote:
Costs are all over the place lately.... 290 is $380 - $430 ..... the 770 is $320 to $370. The odd thing is, of the companies that offer both, the MSI ones have the best coolers and they have the cheapest 770 and the most expensive 290.-
Reply to JackNaylorPE
m
0
l
MeteorsRaining
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
254
à
CPUs
a
c
154
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:14:45 AM
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 7:20:26 AM
JackNaylorPE
a
c
154
)
Power supply
a
c
128
G
Storage
a
c
251
à
CPUs
a
c
247
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:20:48 AM
MeteorsRaining said:
That's why I recommended 290 for 4GB
Well it's pretty hard to get less
.... nice marketing tactic but of no real world use at 1920 or 2560 resolutions as shown in actual testing at the alienbabeltech site.I miss the ole days when ya could just calculate color depth
Resolution x color depth / 8
1920 x 1080 x 32 bit / 8 = 8,294.400 .... cool 8 MB I'm fine
For whatever reason, with the AA and tesselation factors involved, no one that I have seen has come up with a comparable means of doing it in the modern era.
-
Reply to JackNaylorPE
m
0
l
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 7:21:58 AM
MeteorsRaining said:
Rob, my bad, should've looked into the fact that 770 can't really utilize the extra memory. Good observation there
Yeah its just worth bearing in mind. Its worth it if you SLI two of them, then the 4gb is useful, unfortunately the power of a single 770 just isnt enough for it to help.
This is an interesting article if you're interested
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-teste...
-
Reply to RobCrezz
m
0
l
Joeteoh99
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
122
à
CPUs
a
c
83
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:24:08 AM
JP7PlaysMC said:
By the way, the msi R9 is the way to go?( cheapest right now)If you want to get it then it will be a great choice. And you can afford the SSD.
However Shadowplay can't be used. But there are other softwares out there, free and paid. That are great. My friends use Bandicam and Fraps and records without lag.
-
Reply to Joeteoh99
m
0
l
JackNaylorPE
a
c
154
)
Power supply
a
c
128
G
Storage
a
c
251
à
CPUs
a
c
247
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:24:41 AM
Joeteoh99 said:
I would go with that if it is a 4GB. And it doesn't matter now if you don't get an SSD. It will mainly affect boot time and loading time between maps if a game is stored or installed on there.
4GB @ 1920 x 1080 is the proverbial "teats on a bull" ....gives you nada....sometimes a hair faster, sometimes a hair slower. See previous quotes in my posts above as well as actual test data from test site:
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-teste...
4 GB helping anything at 1920 / 2560 is a myth ...even at 5760, benefits are in the 1 - 3 fps range
-
Reply to JackNaylorPE
m
0
l
JP7PlaysMC
September 5, 2014 7:25:50 AM
JackNaylorPE said:
Joeteoh99 said:
I would go with that if it is a 4GB. And it doesn't matter now if you don't get an SSD. It will mainly affect boot time and loading time between maps if a game is stored or installed on there.
4GB @ 1920 x 1080 is the proverbial "teats on a bull" ....gives you nada....sometimes a hair faster, sometimes a hair slower. See previous quotes in my posts above as well as actual test data from test site:
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-teste...
4 GB helping anything at 1920 / 2560 is a myth ...even at 5760, benefits are in the 1 - 3 fps range
That is only for the 770 though, the 290 most certainly can use all 4gb.
-
Reply to RobCrezz
m
0
l
Joeteoh99
a
b
)
Power supply
a
b
G
Storage
a
c
122
à
CPUs
a
c
83
U
Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:28:42 AM
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
- SolvedR9 290 vs gtx 770 Forum
- SolvedGTX 770 vs R9 290x Forum
- SolvedUsed R9 290 vs. New GTX 770 Forum
- Solvedr9 290 4gb vs gtx 770 4gb Forum
- SolvedNeed Advice on Radeon R9 290 (290X) vs. GTX 770 (780) Forum
- SolvedR9 290 VS GTx 770 Forum
- SolvedR9 290 vs GTX 770 Forum
- SolvedRadeon r9 290 vs GTX 770 gaming build Forum
- Solvedgtx 770 classified vs r9 290x? Forum
- SolvedR9 290 vs GTX 770 Forum
- SolvedR9 280x vs. GTX 770 4GB vs 770 2GB vs. R9 290? Forum
- SolvedAsus GTX 770 4GB vs Asus R9 290 OC with CPU-fx 6300 Forum
- SolvedGTX 770 Asus 4GB vs R9 290 Forum
- SolvedGTX 770 vs GTX 780 vs ATI R9 290 Forum
- SolvedGigabyte R9 290 Windforce vs Gigabyte GTX 770 Windforce Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!
. Giving me a really hard time! I really want the SSD but the R9 s 4GB of vram.. . Aff!