nvidia or Amd's 300 series?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
L

LallarN007

Reputable
Jul 16, 2015
6
0
4,510
Hello guyz =), Im getting a new graphics card but the thing is that i don't know that much about Gpus or anything about computer components in general D: Should i go for Nvidia or the new Amd 300 series, And if someone could explain what the 300 series can bring me that the other cards can't that would been much appreciated (y)


// LallarN007
 
Solution
photonboy
As for GTX960 I would recommend a 4GB model. It won't benefit many games but a few already for sure like GTA 5 (probably). It goes up to 6GB for which you need a much better card but that suggest to me more than 2GB is likely at GTX960 settings. And of course for FUTURE PROOFING.

*tough call to recommend 4GB over 2GB as it adds roughly $40 (about 20%):
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/evga-video-card-04gp43966kr

So that's about $225 for a 4GB model and $185 for a similar 2GB model.

GTX970 examples:
EVGA: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/evga-video-card-04gp43975kr
or
MSI: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-gtx970gaming4g

Those should be pretty similar in performance so maybe decide based on looks or investigate review further...
Sort by date Sort by votes
Brunostako

Brunostako

Honorable
Dec 16, 2013
2,349
1
12,960
The thing is that both nvidia and AMD are great, what matters is for what are you gonna use your GPU.

If gaming, at what resolution, what settings are you expecting to use, your budget. Both brands have a set features (technologies) to offer, like AMD FreeSync or nVidia G-Sync, AMD VSR or nVidia DSR, AMD is usually cheaper, consumes more energy but gives great performance in higher resolutions like 1440p or 4K, the opposite is for nvidia, usually more expensive (not by much), consumes less energy and performs better than AMD at 1080p.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

mystilez

Honorable
Sep 27, 2012
123
0
10,710
Bruno thats false... If were talking about high end cards with higher resolution majority of the games benched 980 ti beats r9 fury x. While the cost is the same/similar. Now for the best bang for your bucks would be the r9 Fury tri-cooled version $550 bucks and youre only looking at what 5% difference in performance? Now if you go anything below high end cards my vote is the green team. Maxwell arch > w/e rebrand amd is using. "GPU IS A GPU is a gpu" W/e card you pick the other team will have a competing model with competing application. so you basically should just pick the best bang for your buck. and my opinion on that is the green team.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015


I tend to prefer NVidia, and if we're talking about $300 to $350 then I'd go with one of the EVGA ACX2.0 GTX970 models. See PCPARTPICKER.

I did write up a bit comparison between the R9-390 and GTX970 and concluded there were a lot of pros to the GTX970 like PhysX, power (heat output not just small cost difference), MFAA for supported games and several other things.

Also 0dB (fans turn off for light gaming or idle usage) for supported GTX970 models like EVGA's cards. Asus and MSI. Don't think Gigabyte.

(also DX12_1 level support for GTX970 but only DX12_0 for R9-390. Big deal? Probably not in general.)

The 8GB R9-390 was basically about future proofing with VRAM which in my opinion is fine all things being equal but I find the GTX970 advantages better.

Performance was EQUAL on average comparing stock but the GTX970 pulls ahead by at least 10% with a light overclock. The R9-390 is already overclocked heavily as it's a rebadged R9-7970/290X (same GPU).
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015
As for GTX960 I would recommend a 4GB model. It won't benefit many games but a few already for sure like GTA 5 (probably). It goes up to 6GB for which you need a much better card but that suggest to me more than 2GB is likely at GTX960 settings. And of course for FUTURE PROOFING.

*tough call to recommend 4GB over 2GB as it adds roughly $40 (about 20%):
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/evga-video-card-04gp43966kr

So that's about $225 for a 4GB model and $185 for a similar 2GB model.

GTX970 examples:
EVGA: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/evga-video-card-04gp43975kr
or
MSI: http://pcpartpicker.com/part/msi-video-card-gtx970gaming4g

Those should be pretty similar in performance so maybe decide based on looks or investigate review further.

*Um... 4GB vs 2GB?
When Watch Dogs came out you could use something like a GTX680 (slightly faster than GTX960) and it would run fairly well for a minute or so depending on how much you were driving around then BAM. STUTTER!

What happened was the game used under 2GB (depending on settings) then more textures I assume were being loaded in as you drove around and that would rise above 3GB. When it required more VRAM than you had what happened I think is data had to be loaded from the HDD or SSD which causes a bit stutter fest.

Call Watchdogs a poorly optimized port which it was, but the point is that the reason is because the new consoles have more memory so there's a big jump in demand. For most games I don't think too much more than 3GB of VRAM usage will be typical as game developers need to keep in mind the hardware install base but it is definitely going up.

Vanilla Skyrim (no mods) at 1080p would rise up to about 1.5GB of VRAM, but with mods can jump well over 2GB. An old game yes, but many people still play it. It's conceivable that you can get 60FPS with a few mods but need more than 2GB but I can't be sure. It's only an example anyway.

More than 2GB for a GTX960 will definitely benefit, it's just impossible to say by how much, how soon, and for which games (aside from the few that benefit already).
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom