Choosing the right GPU

What games do you play? I would go with soemthing like a R9 270. It's a good mid range card.

Yeah this should be fine for those games on decent settings.

the 760 is $220 right now...the 750ti isnt as powerful but it's in the 130 range. AMDs mid range cards right now are priced better but Nvidia is releasing the 960 and who knows after that so it may change.

I just looked on Newegg you can get a R9 270 for 160-10 on the rebate so just like he said saving a few bucks is just that a few bucks. The price difference is almost negligible. Plus I'm willing to get the GTX 750ti gets replaced in a few months.

I forgot what the actual cost of the R9 270/270x cards were... and you can definitely find a fair amount that are in your budget. You can get the Asus R9270X-DC2T-2GD5 for $199 on Newegg... and that's definitely within your budget. Then again, it could be money wasted, if you have no plans on ever needing that powerful of a card. I mean, not trying to be a stickler over costs, but for some people $40 goes a long way lol. I know it does for me!

Here's a list of all the 750 Ti, R9270, and R9 270X cards on Newegg (for reference). I'm a big fan of buying what you need, instead of spending more for the sake of having "more performance." If you'll never need the extra performance, there's no sense in spending more. Since there are two R9 270 cards for the exact same price of the 750 Ti, it's kind of a no-brainer to go with one of those. The specs kind of speak for themselves.

If you're looking to get the best performance for your dollar, and not go too far beyond your budget, there are some R9 280 cards that won't destroy your budget. They are pretty good for the price.

The same goes with the 760 cards, which are also quite good. The R9 280 and the 760 are pretty similar in performance for what you get. Personally, I like a more efficient card; so the 760 would be my pick of the two. Also, from what I've heard (though I've not had proven to me yet) it's "supposed" to give you a little bit better performance to run NVIDIA cards with Intel chips, and AMD cards with AMD. Again, I've not seen any proof of this, but there are some people who care about brand matching for personal reasons.

Just thought I'd throw those options out there as well. For what you've mentioned, it doesn't seem like you're playing games that are too demanding for lower end cards; so going the cheaper route might be in your best interest (like the 270). I wouldn't really go any lower, or higher, than these cards, since these will stay in your preferred price range, and won't be too little/too much power for what you're currently doing. If you want to start playing newer games, with high performance settings, then a 280/760 will probably be your best bet for cost efficiency. Going any higher in cost/performance will only be ideal for high resolution screens, high output settings, multi-display gaming, and running SLI/crossfire.

I'm not sure about old republic, but for BF3/4 and WoW you'll be better off on the i3 with Nvidias proprietary low overhead DX11 drivers. (If you were playing BF4, and only BF4, the answer would be to use AMD's Mantle API and pick an AMD GPU, but in this case, Mantle is unlikely to be a supported API for your games for awhile, if ever).

In your application, an AMD GPU (regardless of which one selected) would suffer from lower FPS minimums during compute bound conditions, which will happen somewhat frequently in those games if you play in high traffic conditions. This performance discrepancy has nothing to do with the render performance of the GPU. Almost every AMD GPU in the $100-300 price class is a better value in terms of raw render throughput, the problem is that there is no DX11 "fix" from AMD to combat the driver/software/cpu bottleneck that arises in compute intensive conditions. AMDs solution is a whole new API instead, Mantle, which you won't be able to leverage.

It's important to understand that the performance of compute intensive games has hard limits set by the CPU's execution capabilities. The performance characteristics of a GPU only effect your FPS if we assume that the render workload is fixed, which it is not. All games have vastly adjustable render workloads (visual quality settings). What this means is that all (current/modern) GPUs can play all games at good FPS, but not all at the same visual quality settings.

IMO your choice of GPU is actually pretty simple at this point. Anything from a GTX750 - GTX980 is a good choice to play those games. The difference is that the GTX750 is better suited to playing those games at 720P, or 1080P with low detail settings, whereas the GTX980 is better suited to playing those games at ultra 1440P. GPUs in the middle like the GTX760 are best suited to 1080P with high (or better) detail settings. Selecting the right GPU is probably as simple as figuring out how many dollars you are willing to part with for a given improvement in visual quality. The resolution of your monitor should play a significant role in this decision.

the 760 is going to get replaced next month. Its almost pointless to buy a Nvidia card right now until their entire line rolls out. The R9 270 with the I3 is a great combination because its in that sweet spot of not being bottle necked by the CPU(the 4130 is a great processor btw). How I know this? I built almost the exact same system for a relative running similar games. If your going mid range go with AMD or wait until the new GTX mid range cards are out. That's my 2 cents.

Sorry ImDaBaron, there is no way to state that a particular CPU never bottlenecks a particular GPU without specific conditions listed because ANY CPU (even an overclocked i7-4790K) can bottleneck ANY GPU (even a R7 250) if the conditions are right. You seem to be basing your statement on a subjective observation of a result that appears to work well (I'm sure it works fine), but from that subjective observation of the i3 and R9 270 playing games, you can't draw the conclusion that there is never a CPU bottleneck.

The i3 sets particular performance limitations in compute intensive games NO MATTER WHAT GPU is selected to go with it, as ALL CPUs do. In compute bound conditions in DX11 games, nvidia DX11 drivers offer a ~30% higher minimum FPS. It doesn't matter if we're dealing with low end cards like the 750/260X at 720P or high end cards like the R9 290 /970 at 1440P. Either way the discrepancy in compute overhead is in play. There is no mystical combination of CPU and GPU that eliminates bottle-necking of its own accord. Furthermore, bottlenecks shifting back and forth from the CPU to the GPU are totally normal in modern games. There is nothing wrong with this.

In a real world example: In compute bound conditions that produce 30FPS minimums on an AMD GPU playing a DX11 game, and Nvidia GPU would be maintaining 40FPS. This is not because the GPU is better, it's because the drivers make better use of the CPU and can get more draw calls accomplished with less compute overhead.

Ok what was the need for all that again? That's understood here. That's not what the guy asked.

Oh, so that was just a really long typo on your part? Sorry I misunderstood you then. I was under the impression that you intended to say: "because its in that sweet spot of not being bottle necked by the CPU." A rather peculiar typo, since no such sweet spot can exist without stating the conditions of workload that causes this to be a sweet spot. The i3 can be a fantastic "sweet spot" CPU for pairing with all sorts of GPUs depending on the visual quality and FPS goals of the build. Your "typo" here is highly misleading, because it implies that there is a relationship between the CPU and GPU greater than what actually exists.

Okay... that was a little entertaining lol. Not trying to patronise either of you, but that made me chuckle a bit.

ImDaBaron- Given that NVIDIA will be releasing some new cards soon, I guess it could be a good idea to wait; if the OP really cares to wait, that is. But, that's also only under a certain set of circumstances. Yes, while getting a better card for the money is a nice thing, the only reason to hold out is if the person really can afford to wait. Also, unless it's going to make the prices of the current cards he's considering drop significantly (ie: $20+ on average), there's almost no reason to hold off on the purchase. The only reason he would wait is to get everything for the best possible price. If the OP really doesn't need much beyond what he can get today, within budget, and doesn't really have much of a need to get anything "better," then waiting is kind of pointless. If the he wants the best performance possible, then waiting is a good idea... but that hasn't even been expressed yet.

Also, the games he listed are not too demanding, and are somewhat dated; so waiting for a new card is only a smart move for the tight-budget minded. Hell, even if the OP meant BF4, instead of BF3, the 750 Ti can handle BF4 without any serious problems (watch the linked review video in a previous post). I'm only saying all of that because I was almost talked into overspending on a GPU due to the "more is better" mentality. More isn't always better for every person. Diminishing returns kick in at a much lower point for certain gamers. As I already pointed out, getting a better card won't be too helpful unless he's trying to get the maximum performance from each game, and/or is playing with a high resolution display. The only real incentive to get a better card would be if he's planning on buying newer games. If not, then there's no reason to really get a 'better' card than what is currently available. Not trying to undermine you here, just trying to help inform the OP to make the best decision.

mdocod- I think part of that lengthy reply was somewhat directed at me? At least, it seemed like you were indirectly getting at a couple things that I wasn't entirely clear on; like why people recommend not mixing AMD cards with Intel chips, and what the real difference of mixing them is. Definitely some valuable information, in my opinion. I do have a question for you: would the difference in performance be noticeable between the 750 TI and the R9 270X? Given that the 270X has a higher performance output, I would think the higher benchmarks would indicate about the same real-world performance/experience as the 750 Ti under worst-case conditions. I know benchmarks will only give you so much info to relate to real-world performance, especially as drivers get updated, but will the difference really be minimal between the two when you run an Intel chip? If so, then it seems like the best route would be the 750 Ti, the 760, or to see what the new GTX release has in store.

What exactly are you arguing with me again?

Um excuse me but I wasnt trying to get him to buy a card that's over his budget. The stronger card is the same price as the 750ti. That's just the way it is. It makes absolutely no sense to go with the weaker card. Let me repeat that. It makes NO sense to go with the weaker card.

You took what I said out of context. Way to get defensive over nothing, mate. Also, I was sort of basing the whole 750 Ti bit off of what mdocod said. Please read everything before making a snappy comeback. Brute force does not always equal a better card, hence why I asked a very specific question to him. Either you didn't bother reading that, or you think it's all a bunch of crap. Either way, I had my reasons for not mentioning the AMD cards. It's also funny you think I'm only recommending the 750 Ti because I've already said the 270/270x cards would be the better value for brute performance.

To clear one thing up: I was mostly responding to what you said about the new NVIDIA cards coming out soon, hence why I didn't mention the R9 270/270X.

Please read everything before you get defensive.

It's not being defensive just irritating to hear the circular argument.We get it he has a budget and he may need a video card now. Am I missing anything here? He's been given options all within the same price range and IMO one direction is silly to think about until the changes have taken place. Yes the prices will drop significantly. That's already been happening with the discontinued cards that the 970 and 980 replaced. If your going the GTX route wait...if not then the you have some nice choices with AMD. But once again it makes no sense to go with GTX right now. Your paying premium prices for cards that are weeks away(probably 2) for dropping significantly in price.

It makes absolutely no sense to go with the weaker card. Let me repeat that. It makes NO sense to go with the weaker card.

Click to expand...

You're obviously missing the point and ignoring the information you don't want to hear. The advantages of a stronger AMD GPU for the money end where the compute workload becomes the bottleneck.

It makes a lot of sense to go with a slightly weaker GPU if the drivers for that GPU reduce the compute overhead for the games in question significantly. The GTX750Ti will produce higher minimum FPS in compute bound conditions than the R9 270, because of differences in the architecture and software optimization. The stronger card winds up hurting FPS because of the less efficient software support. BF3 and WoW are compute intensive games that shift the bottleneck back and forth from the CPU to GPU often depending on conditions.

In a wide open field with low unit count, the R9 270 will allow for higher visual quality settings and higher FPS than the GTX750Ti, but those conditions aren't really where the performance differences matter. Unfortunately, those are the only sort of repeatable conditions you will ever see in a benchmark. In the real world, nobody is playing a benchmark, they are playing a game with lots of players or units that require lots of execution resources to sort out. There is a more significant software bottleneck in these conditions on AMD GPUs in DX11 titles.

Here's the "usual" benchmark perspective:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_750_Ti/22.html

Note the R9 270 (7870) and R9 270X producing 30-60% higher FPS, in GPU bound conditions. This sort of result means the 270 must be better for playing WoW, right? This would be true, for someone who solo's everywhere and stays away from high traffic areas. As soon as the conditions shift the bottleneck to the CPU (high traffic areas and raids), the FPS is going to take a dive on either system. The difference, is that when the R9 270 drops to 25FPS, the GTX750Ti will only drop to 33FPS.

Would you rather have 25-75FPS (R9 270)? Or 33-55FPS (GTX750Ti)? Assuming we're dealing with a 1080P 60hz monitor, the LATTER is the better result.

Selecting a GPU isn't as cut and dry as picking whatever has the biggest render pipeline. That sort of oversimplification of the issue is common. Most people think gaming performance(FPS) originates with the GPU. This is fundamentally flawed.

ImDaBaron- I might not have put things in the most technical way, or with the most supporting evidence, but I did take into consideration that there are other GPUs on the market. Again, I wish you would have left everything in context, as it makes more sense if you reread what I originally wrote.

mdocod- Thank you for that explanation. I'll be sure to keep all of that in mind when making my future GPU purchases. If you have any links you could send me for future reference on this topic, that would be great. It's always nice to have reference pages for personal use, and for sending to people when I make personal recommendations. I'm now crossing my fingers that the new GTX releases will have a nice 750 Ti replacement/improvement in the line-up.

Waiting's probably best then to get your budget back up. Plus like I said price drops will happening next month. No worries about the fuss it's been amusing.