Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 770 + 120GB SSD vs R9 290

Tags:
  • Power Supplies
  • Storage
  • CPUs
  • Graphics
  • Gtx
  • SSD
  • Graphics Cards
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
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!

More about : gtx 770 120gb ssd 290

a b ) Power supply
a c 166 à CPUs
a c 78 U Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:06:21 AM

The r9 290 will perform better in games. The 770 + SSD will be a faster system in general use, it will boot faster, programs will load quicker, will feel more "snappy" to use.

I wouldnt build a computer without a SSD or SSHD these days, it just makes the computer much nicer to use.
m
2
l
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

Depends on what brand all the 3 are. Specify the models of GPUs and the SSD you intend to compare, adding to that the PSU you have. I hope you have a powerful enough processor to go with those cards :) 
m
0
l
Related resources
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. ;) 
m
1
l
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

I'd get the 290 now - as long as its not one of the reference card ones - and a SSD later.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 5, 2014 6:09:46 AM

if you have a preference go with that, both have strengths and weaknesses, I like amd gpu so i would say 290, but some would say the 770. they are pretty evenly matched cards, so it comes down to as well what your doing, gaming or productivity more
m
0
l
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.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 5, 2014 6:23:29 AM

Once you go SSD you never go back.
m
0
l
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.





m
0
l
September 5, 2014 6:36:02 AM

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!
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 6:37:59 AM

Joeteoh99 I will indeed record and that piece of software comes in handy. :) .

Thanks a lot for the help!
m
0
l
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

I wouldn't get Asus for Radeon Cards. Or even the gtx770.

And i'd get the Samsung 840 for the SSD. XFX is OK. But a 650 would do for either card.
m
0
l
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



m
0
l
September 5, 2014 6:40:37 AM

bad_eyes83 I do have a preference on the Nvidia one, but the fact that the R9 came as an option kind of caused me to wonder.

Thanks a lot for the input!
m
0
l
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

JP7PlaysMC said:
Joeteoh99 I will indeed record and that piece of software comes in handy. :) .

Thanks a lot for the help!


Yes, Nvidia has great recording software. If you want to record then Nvidia is the better choice by far.
m
0
l
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

JP7PlaysMC said:
Joeteoh99 I will indeed record and that piece of software comes in handy. :) .

Thanks a lot for the help!


No worries. I also guess Envy14type agreed with me that Shadow play is a grea software for recording gameplay. Thanks mate. ;) 
m
0
l
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 :) 
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 6:44:51 AM

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!
m
0
l
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 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!


For Nvidia:
Asus, Gigabyte or MSI

For AMD:
Sapphire, Gigabyte or XFX.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 6:49:09 AM

JackHammer you brought a very nice point! Though as I live in Portugal, I've actually searched and found none whatsoever available. This is actually bad as your point is very valid.

Thanks nonetheless!
m
0
l
a b ) Power supply
a b G Storage
a b à CPUs
a b U Graphics card
September 5, 2014 6:51:19 AM

RobCrezz said:

I wouldnt build a computer without a SSD or SSHD these days, it just makes the computer much nicer to use.


This!

m
0
l
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!
m
0
l
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.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 6:56:41 AM

Gopher1369 yes, that. :p  . Giving me a really hard time! I really want the SSD but the R9 s 4GB of vram.. . Aff!

Thanks!
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 7:00:21 AM

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.
m
0
l
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 :) 
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 7:01:30 AM

Single monitor yeah.
m
0
l
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.
m
0
l
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...


m
0
l
a b ) Power supply
a c 166 à CPUs
a c 78 U Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:03:09 AM

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.

m
0
l
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.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 7:05:47 AM

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.
m
0
l
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...

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.


m
0
l
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 :) 
m
0
l
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. :) 
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 7:09:00 AM

JackNaylor and the msi GTX 770 is the cheapest one.
m
0
l
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
m
0
l
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

R9 290 with SSD is the clear choice IMO, OP :) 
m
0
l
a b ) Power supply
a c 166 à CPUs
a c 78 U Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:12:54 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"
m
0
l
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.
m
0
l
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

Rob, my bad, should've looked into the fact that 770 can't really utilize the extra memory. Good observation there :) 
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 7:20:26 AM

So if possible, the R9 290 plus the SSD (direct GTX 780 without ssd line of fire) is the best option,
m
0
l
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.
m
0
l
September 5, 2014 7:21:58 AM

By the way, the msi R9 is the way to go?( cheapest right now)
m
0
l
a b ) Power supply
a c 166 à CPUs
a c 78 U Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:22:37 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...
m
0
l
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.
m
0
l
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

m
0
l
September 5, 2014 7:25:50 AM

I'm thinking in getting dxtory anyway
m
0
l
a b ) Power supply
a c 166 à CPUs
a c 78 U Graphics card
September 5, 2014 7:27:18 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.
m
0
l
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

JP7PlaysMC said:
I'm thinking in getting dxtory anyway


If I had me that from the strat. It would be R9 290 then. Go with a MSI if you said it is cheap and it is silent and is cool (great cooling).
m
0
l
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!