Which Dx 11 card is the right one ATM? 4890 upgrade

Hey people, I need some opinions of people who are still up to date with all the GPU series. After I built my last computer I forced myself to stop looking in market for the last 2 years or so.

A few weeks ago I ran into my first annoyance with my system, No Dx11, damn.

I have a sapphire 4890, i was planning to crossfire it when i started to notice its performace drop with new games, but since it dosent have dx11 is that a good idea.

I was thinking about getting some cheaper cards with dx 11 and cf or sli them. or even get a +$250 single card with dx 11.

I also don't need any unnecessary over kill. I run stuff at 1920x1080(or 1200) so anything above that is extra future proof.
which I'm no so much worried about as the system is already 2 years old. just looking for a little gxf boost.

I also dont need anything that would be bottle neckd by my current (2 year old) config.

AMD 940 BE 3.0GZ (haven't tried oc'ing yet)
Gigabyte UD4P 790x (sli/cf =reads 16X-8X on newegg but maybe its 8x-8x)
4 gig 1066 ram
750 cosair PSU


so i guess whats the best dx11 card/s that will max this out but not by too much overkill or is my 4890 even bottle necked by this setup.

the Cards I have been debating between would be the 6850 single or CF and the GTX 460 single or sli. maybe even cheaper cards will do.

thanks for any opinions
52 answers Last reply
More about which card 4890 upgrade
  1. You have the best video card you can get for the processor you have. DX11 is mostly a marketing plow as the developers themselves determine how good a game is regardless of API. There are plenty of DX9 games that look better than DX10 games.

    Even though your card is D3D10 it will outperform many D3D11 cards such as the HD 5770 and GTS 450.

    Unless you're buying a new computer stick with what you have.
  2. If you want to continue the ATI trend, then the 6850 2GB is the card to get IMO. It will perform a lil' below 2x6850's, but it will suck less power and run cooler.

    On the nVidia side, if you don't want to use mod to run SLI, then a single GTX570 is a good call IMO.

    And the 790X chipset runs 8x/8x in CF. Now, there are benchies around (even here in Tom's) that show 8x/8x won't handicap your experience at 1920x1600 even.

    If it's a "reassuring" note for you, I'm your same shoes. My 4890 is getting a lil' dated and I'm looking at the Sapphire 6950 2GB with hungry eyes.

    Cheers!
  3. His 940 won't power a 6950 and the 2GB version is a waste of money for 1920x1080.
  4. Just like the 4890 at the time of launch was a some-what over kill for 1920x1080, now it's a "it does the job" card for that res.

    As the time goes by, DirectX gets more mature (well, devs actually), and more features it's going to use from your current card to a point that it will be chocked by them. Like you pointed out, DX11 ATM is not being pushed to the "edge", but like you can see, DX9c cards now (Ati X1000 series and nVidia 7000 series) can't run, for instance, MW2 with full quality. Same thing will happen with DX11.

    I don't like to use the "future proof" phrase here, because there's no future proof when you get a switch of OpenGL or DirectX, but as the "current API" evolves, you current video card will suffer more. In that aspect, you could talk about "future proofing", but I quite not endorse that phrase :P

    Cheers!

    EDIT: The 940 is a BE processor, so he can easily make it run at 3.7GHhz if it's a C2 or C1 stepping. If it is a C3 stepping, it can run at 3.9Ghz with no volt increase. Maybe a heatsink (HSF) change though :P
  5. 2GB of VRAM is completely worthless at for a single monitor and video card. Any features or settings that will use more than 1GB of VRAM will be limited by the GPU core before the VRAM limit.

    For example, Ubersampling, a DX11 feature of Witcher 2, is not useable at all with the 6950 2GB at 1080p.

    You're assuming he has the capacity and motivation to overclock which he doesn't talk about at all.

    I want to see where a 940 hits 3.9ghz without voltage increase... Or even 3.7ghz. No, 2 hours of prime95 is not stable in any way.
  6. ok, again, dont listen to browsingtheworld, he makes terrible posts that are totally wrong

    as yuka said, the 6850 2GB is a great card from AMD

    if you want to go with nvidia, the gtx 570 will be out of ur $250 price range but the 560 Ti will fit in perfectly and is a beast of a card

    Im running the MSI GTX 560 Ti Twin Frozr II and it is a beast. It runs all my games at max settings (Bad Company 2 at max settings with 32x Anti-Aliasing i get well over 60FPS)
  7. Why wont it power? I got a GTs 450 on(few months ago) a AMD Anthlon 64 x2 4200+ and it runs few games like CS:S like nothin'(At 60+ FPS never went below 55 FPS with Max settings) compare to the integrated on a 1920x1200(24" Samsung 245BW)
  8. I don't understand why people comment without reading my posts. I didn't say the 6950 is a bad card, just that the 2GB version is a waste of money compared to the 1GB version or GTX 560 Ti for a single monitor.

    Obviously the VRAM isn't that important if you're also suggesting a 560 Ti...

    Then again reading and comprehension seems to be lacking from some of the users here.
  9. browsingtheworld said:
    I don't understand why people comment without reading my posts. I didn't say the 6950 is a bad card, just that the 2GB version is a waste of money compared to the 1GB version or GTX 560 Ti for a single monitor.

    Obviously the VRAM isn't that important if you're also suggesting a 560 Ti...

    Then again reading and comprehension seems to be lacking from some of the users here.


    Well, I bought the 4890 with a 1280x1024 monitor and like a year ago I went 1080p. If you buy a "tight" card now, you'll loose your "cheap upgrade path" down the road IMO. That's really arguable, but like you said and I totally agree, current gen games ain't using DX11 at it's best yet. Maybe monitors with more res will lower their price points down the road. And well, there's when the 6950 and it's 2GB buffer will come handy.

    On the bandwidth side of things, the 6950 actually doesn't get starved at all using the 2G when using eyefinity. At least, that's what I recall from the benchies. I understand what you say about it, but I don't agree with your statement about it being "not capable of driving the 2GB buffer".

    If he's on a tight budget, maybe getting a 6950 1GB is a good call also, but if it's way cheaper though. And a single GTX560ti is also another good call.

    About your CPU comment, in fact i do have a PhII 965 c3 running @3.9Ghz with all it's 4 cores with a CM Gemin II and no volting. Runs very smooth. I would've gotten 4.1Ghz, but stressing tests made it fail... Remember BE parts have unlocked multi, so you can use all the TDP headroom you have on your Mobo and CPU can handle.

    Cheers!
  10. Sadly games don't make too much use of DX11 at the moment. Personally I say you're better off getting a new CPU cooler, overclocking your CPU, and adding another 4890 to run in Crossfire and see how long that lasts you. That's what I would do anyway.
  11. browsingtheworld said:
    I don't understand why people comment without reading my posts. I didn't say the 6950 is a bad card, just that the 2GB version is a waste of money compared to the 1GB version or GTX 560 Ti for a single monitor.

    Obviously the VRAM isn't that important if you're also suggesting a 560 Ti...

    Then again reading and comprehension seems to be lacking from some of the users here.


    Rude and uppity ! Welcome to toms hardware
  12. Thanks Everyone for your opinions, still digesting some of it.. but off the bat the 570 is way to much $ I think, the 6950 2gb looks decent at ~270 but might be a little to much also.

    560 ti looks nice as a single card option but for 40$ more i might aswell just get the 6950.

    I guess i'm somewhat prepping myself for battlefield 3 honestly, if your getting 60 FPS on BFBC2 still think you'll be ok?

    so no mention of the cheaper cards? 6850 at ~185$ ? or any gtx 460 anything wrong with these or is my 4890 cf'd still better best bang for buck. I here what megaman was saying I mean, eventually there will be dx 12/ 13 / 14 (or who knows what)

    I did eventually plan to overclock my cpu when it needed, but gonna have to get a decent cooler first.
  13. olinga said:
    Thanks Everyone for your opinions, still digesting some of it.. but off the bat the 570 is way to much $ I think, the 6950 2gb looks decent at ~270 but might be a little to much also.

    560 ti looks nice as a single card option but for 40$ more i might aswell just get the 6950.

    I guess i'm somewhat prepping myself for battlefield 3 honestly, if your getting 60 FPS on BFBC2 still think you'll be ok?

    so no mention of the cheaper cards? 6850 at ~185$ ? or any gtx 460 anything wrong with these or is my 4890 cf'd still better best bang for buck. I here what megaman was saying I mean, eventually there will be dx 12/ 13 / 14 (or who knows what)

    I did eventually plan to overclock my cpu when it needed, but gonna have to get a decent cooler first.

    Even with DX11 your video card is just as fast as the 6850/460 and you will be able to run games at higher settings. It's not worth getting anything less than a 560 Ti or HD 6950. I don't understand what the benefit of spending $40 for a 6950 over the 560 Ti is for a single monitor. They have roughly the same performance plus the 560 Ti overclocks better and nvidia drivers are slightly better than AMD drivers.

    Another option is SLi GTX 460s for $300
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500202

    At stock they will be equivalent of the GTX 580 and have better overclock headroom while consuming about the same amount of power.

    Cooler for overclocking:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835233081
  14. well i would probably spend the 40$ just to feel good about having 2GB weather its needed now or not lol maybe its not worth it.

    I guess I might OC this cpu and get a decent cooler, try and find another 4890, get and a little SSD maybe; that should see me to the end of my 4 year upgrade plan (wishful thinking maybe,lol)
  15. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/293?vs=330

    There are plenty of comparisons at 2560x1600 which you don't even plan to do where you would think VRAM makes a differences. It doesn't do much...
  16. browsingtheworld said:
    Even with DX11 your video card is just as fast as the 6850/460 and you will be able to run games at higher settings. It's not worth getting anything less than a 560 Ti or HD 6950. I don't understand what the benefit of spending $40 for a 6950 over the 560 Ti is for a single monitor. They have roughly the same performance plus the 560 Ti overclocks better and nvidia drivers are slightly better than AMD drivers.

    Another option is SLi GTX 460s for $300
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500202

    At stock they will be equivalent of the GTX 580 and have better overclock headroom while consuming about the same amount of power.

    Cooler for overclocking:
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835233081


    ARE u sure that two 460 will run like one 580? :o I want to know because i am planning to do that in near future :D :D
  17. browsingtheworld said:
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/293?vs=330

    There are plenty of comparisons at 2560x1600 which you don't even plan to do where you would think VRAM makes a differences. It doesn't do much...


    you are totally right, don't let these clowns tell you that 2 gig is going to make 1 iota of difference at 1080p right now. The problem lies with the OPS cpu which will not be able to really take advantage of a card like that unless the OP were to oc further. Regardless to upgrade from a 4890 Id at least go with a 6950/gtx560ti if not a gtx 570/6970 level of gpu, the 4890 was no slouch in dx10.
  18. I'm in a very similar situation as the OP. My system has a Phenom II 720 (unlocked) X4 @ 3.3GHz and a single 4890 on a 1920x1080 monitor. Most games are still highly enjoyable at high detail levels with my setup. I can't always crank 'em up to the max, but it's a 2-year old build, so I expect that.

    I've considered a graphics upgrade. If I were to do so now, I'd look in the 6870 to 6950 range of performance. Why? Because anything less isn't much of an upgrade over the 4890 at all. And yes, I could Crossfire two 4890's if I wanted. Unfortunately, that likely means getting one 2nd-hand in order to find a reasonable price. I've browsed eBaY for 4890's several times over the last year or so. The condition of these 2nd-hand cards varies drastically, and I simply don't trust 2nd-hand high-performance PC parts.

    Very few places still have new 4890's, and they tend to want more than $200 for 'em. (Mine cost $200 2-years ago...) If I were going to spend $200+ presently, I might as well get a brand new 6950 or GTX 560ti. That or just say "To Hell with it all" and wait another generation. That is exactly what I'm doing - skipping a 2nd generation of cards. Why? My 4890 is "adequate enough" for now. And who knows? By the time the next-gen rolls out, I might actually want an entirely new machine.
  19. hyder13 said:
    ARE u sure that two 460 will run like one 580? :o I want to know because i am planning to do that in near future :D :D

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/314?vs=305

    Crushes everything at the $300 and it's not even close. Highly overclockable to boot.

    Oh yeah before someone jumps in with some mail in rebate BS. This is before rebates. With rebates it's $240 (plus shipping).
  20. I agree that you wouldn't want to go lower than a 6950 or 560ti. You'll be disappointed with anything less due to where you are coming from.

    The 2gb vs 1gb argument is about prediction. Right now there is virtually no difference (there was one time I noticed a difference in Dirt 2 on one track, but that was eventually fixed for lesser cards).

    However, we don't know what is in store for us in the future. I'm also hearing possible differences in the new Crysis 2 DX11 patch. People are getting huge performance drops at max settings atm, and some are suggesting it could be VRAM related, but it may not.

    You can get the 6950 in either flavor, so you can forgo the extra ram if you choose. Think of the 2gb as an insurance policy, and the 1gb version as the gamble.
  21. bystander said:
    The 2gb vs 1gb argument is about prediction. Right now there is virtually no difference (there was one time I noticed a difference in Dirt 2 on one track, but that was eventually fixed for lesser cards).


    The VRAM makes a difference but the speed of the GPU itself is always more important. There will be no situation where the 6950 2GB outperforms GTX 460s in SLi.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-13.html
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/292?vs=314 <-- 6970 getting destroyed.
  22. Check HardOCP. If you read their articles on the 5870, they have a couple where they compare the 2GB, 1GB, and the GTX470/GTX480. (which both have more then 1GB of ram.) There are a few games that require more then 1GB of Vram, but by and large there aren't (or weren't) many. If however you need to spend $270 you might as well get the 6950. Much better card for the price.

    If you are keeping that CPU stock, I'd say stick with a 6850/6870. Not sure how well your CPU will drive a 69xx.
  23. browsingtheworld said:
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/314?vs=305

    Crushes everything at the $300 and it's not even close. Highly overclockable to boot.

    Oh yeah before someone jumps in with some mail in rebate BS. This is before rebates. With rebates it's $240 (plus shipping).


    it is sad that i cant buy in that price(i live in bangladesh.here two gtx 460 cost around 450 usd and one 580 more than that.) :( :(

    but still thanks for the reply.I hope that two 460 will give me a decent performance :)
  24. browsingtheworld said:
    The VRAM makes a difference but the speed of the GPU itself is always more important. There will be no situation where the 6950 2GB outperforms GTX 460s in SLi.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6970-radeon-hd-6950-cayman,2818-13.html
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/292?vs=314 <-- 6970 getting destroyed.


    In the situation where I saw the 2gb card make a difference, it was a single 6950 2gb vs 470's sli. The 6950 ran the map smoother and higher FPS within the LA stadium on Dirt 2 (I believe there has since been an update to the map, so both should now run smooth).

    Like I said, this is mostly about what COULD be needed in the near future. Do you want to spend an extra $20-40$ to insure that you have enough VRAM in the future, or do you to take a gamble that it won't have any advantage.
  25. Boy Olinga, your thread sure got hijacked ^_^.

    Anyway yeah, overclocking your CPU, adding another 4890, and adding an SSD for your operating system will speed things up and should help you last a while. You probably won't see a big jump in requirements to play on high until the next gen of game consoles come out anyway. Developers work on the lowest common denominator first (generally the 360 and then ported to PS3) then they port the game to PC. Some games, like star wars, don't have many enhancements for the PC and thus don't need too much. Other games, like GTA4, are just ported way too poorly and have insane requirements for smooth play.
  26. megamanx00 said:
    Boy Olinga, your thread sure got hijacked ^_^.

    Anyway yeah, overclocking your CPU, adding another 4890, and adding an SSD for your operating system will speed things up and should help you last a while. You probably won't see a big jump in requirements to play on high until the next gen of game consoles come out anyway. Developers work on the lowest common denominator first (generally the 360 and then ported to PS3) then they port the game to PC. Some games, like star wars, don't have many enhancements for the PC and thus don't need too much. Other games, like GTA4, are just ported way too poorly and have insane requirements for smooth play.


    I thought the whole point of the thread was to choose a DX11 card.

    And once he did get to that point, the thread was still aimed at which model of the card he should get based on VRAM size.
  27. CF'd 4890s might be fast, but missing out on DX11. More games are coming out with DX11 patches, some are even worth while. (WoW) I would sell the 4890 while you can still get $100ish for it and buy a new card. A 6870 or 5870 would be near the performance of the 4890s CF'd, while giving him DX11.
  28. bystander said:
    In the situation where I saw the 2gb card make a difference, it was a single 6950 2gb vs 470's sli. The 6950 ran the map smoother and higher FPS within the LA stadium on Dirt 2 (I believe there has since been an update to the map, so both should now run smooth).

    Like I said, this is mostly about what COULD be needed in the near future. Do you want to spend an extra $20-40$ to insure that you have enough VRAM in the future, or do you to take a gamble that it won't have any advantage.

    You're trying to predict the future and are assuming that using features that will use more VRAM will not inherently bog down the GPU.

    By the same argument I could predict that features which will use more than 1GB of VRAM will be unusable with a single card. Ubersampling in Witcher 2 and DoF (and everything else) in Metro 2033 are unusable with a single 560 Ti or 6950 if you expect playable frames. You're also assuming that future technology doesn't become more efficient and use less VRAM and less of your memory bandwidth which has always been the case.

    The HD 6950 2GB is costs at least $40 and does not offer any performance increase at 1080p. There's also the fact the 560 Ti will overclock significantly higher than the HD 6950, has better scaling when overclocking and has better driver support.

    If he's going to spend $40 more and is worried about the VRAM for a single GPU he can also get a GTX 560 Ti 2GB. Something to keep in mind.
  29. 4745454b said:
    CF'd 4890s might be fast, but missing out on DX11. More games are coming out with DX11 patches, some are even worth while. (WoW) I would sell the 4890 while you can still get $100ish for it and buy a new card. A 6870 or 5870 would be near the performance of the 4890s CF'd, while giving him DX11.

    Can we stop recommending the 5870 and 6870. Both are overpriced.

    http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/37499-hd-6870-hd-6850-vs-gtx-460-1gb-overclocking-study-15.html

    When overclocked, the GTX 460 1GB, which can be found for $40 less than the 6870 before rebates, is 6% slower than the 6870 in total performance. However at 1080p the GTX 460 1GB is faster by 1%.
  30. But the HD 5870 is faster than a HD 6870, at stock, which you are saying is faster than a GTX 460 when overclocked, so a HD 5870 when overclocked is......?
  31. yummerzzz said:
    But the HD 5870 is faster than a HD 6870, at stock, which you are saying is faster than a GTX 460 when overclocked, so a HD 5870 when overclocked is......?

    For $370 you can get a much 6970 or GTX 570, both of which are better than the 5870. If you read the previous post you'll notice the GTX 460 is is faster than the HD 6870 at 1080p when overclocked.
  32. But I thought you stated the OP didn't want to overclock, and given the Hd 6XXX series great scaling in CF, versus the GTX 460 at stock, would this not be better performance, but what I don't understand is suggest these card, as 2 of them are out of OP's budget, I support your previous suggestion of a single GTX 560 ti.

    Though this leads to another point, as his computer support CF, and not SLI, wouldn't the HD 6950's be a better choice?
  33. Motherboard supports*
    Sorry for DP, couldn't edit message.
  34. Sorry you're right. Since it's not SLi compatible he should probably go with a single card solution since AMD cards are overpriced right now. Stocks of HD 5830s and HD 5850s are out.

    He does say he plans to overclock in this thread.
  35. Well, I still stand by my 6950 recommendation then 8)

    Make it 1GB or 2GB, well, depends on their price difference. If it's less than $30, get the 2GB one IMO. I'm close to get 2 extra monitors for Eyefinity (it would be like 1080x(1920x3) -> vertical setup xD), but if olinga doesn't plan into getting a higher res monitor or something down the road, maybe he can just save the difference. Around the 5830/6850 the performance in DX9 and DX10 would be close to the 4890, so it would only be a side-grade in that regard (taking heat and power off the equation :P).

    On the nVidia side of things... Well... The GTX560ti is the only one worthy in the P/P arena IMO. The GTX570 the next (big) step upwards and the GTX460 1GB the closer in perf to the 4890.

    And like I said a lil' up, OC'ing the BE's is a piece of cake, really. You don't need to play with voltages at all, just the multiplier till it's stable. That's by far the easiest way to get a lot of performance without effort :P

    Cheers!
  36. browsingtheworld said:
    You're trying to predict the future and are assuming that using features that will use more VRAM will not inherently bog down the GPU.

    By the same argument I could predict that features which will use more than 1GB of VRAM will be unusable with a single card. Ubersampling in Witcher 2 and DoF (and everything else) in Metro 2033 are unusable with a single 560 Ti or 6950 if you expect playable frames. You're also assuming that future technology doesn't become more efficient and use less VRAM and less of your memory bandwidth which has always been the case.

    The HD 6950 2GB is costs at least $40 and does not offer any performance increase at 1080p. There's also the fact the 560 Ti will overclock significantly higher than the HD 6950, has better scaling when overclocking and has better driver support.

    If he's going to spend $40 more and is worried about the VRAM for a single GPU he can also get a GTX 560 Ti 2GB. Something to keep in mind.


    I am not predicting anything. Read what I wrote again. I'm saying paying extra for 2GB's is more like an insurance policy. If there is need for it, you have it, but if you go without it now, if they do need it in the future, your out of luck.
  37. bystander said:
    I am not predicting anything. Read what I wrote again. I'm saying paying extra for 2GB's is more like an insurance policy. If there is need for it, you have it, but if you go without it now, if they do need it in the future, your out of luck.

    There are already situations where you need more than 1GB of VRAM as I have mentioned above. In every one of those situations the GPU is more of the limiting factor than the VRAM.

    You literally need to double the resolution to see a difference:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4137/amds-gtx-560-ti-counteroffensive-radeon-hd-6950-1gb-xfxs-radeon-hd-6870-black-edition/7
  38. browsingtheworld said:
    There are already situations where you need more than 1GB of VRAM as I have mentioned above. In every one of those situations the GPU is more of the limiting factor than the VRAM.

    You literally need to double the resolution to see a difference:
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4137/amds-gtx-560-ti-counteroffensive-radeon-hd-6950-1gb-xfxs-radeon-hd-6870-black-edition/7


    And I gave an example where 2GB's did help, and the card was enough.

    Not all situations are the same.
  39. bystander said:
    And I gave an example where 2GB's did help, and the card was enough.

    Not all situations are the same.


    Your claims contradict the facts:
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/330?vs=293

    At 2560x1600 when more than 1GB of VRAM is used the GTX 560 Ti, which has less VRAM than the GTX 470 performs almost identically as the HD 6950 2GB in DiRT3, the game you specifically mention.

    Do you have any hard evidence with benchmarks and review? Otherwise it sounds like you're just making things up. I already gave clear examples such as DoF/ubersampling whereas you just claim to have these problems. I can just make up things and say I played game X with video card Y and it was smoother than game X with video card Z.

    All current evidence suggests that VRAM is not nearly as important as how fast the GPU is.
  40. You gave an example of a benchmark. I gave you an example on a specific race track that is not in the benchmark.

    Google "dirt 2" LA stadium stuttering.
  41. bystander said:
    You gave an example of a benchmark. I gave you an example on a specific race track that is not in the benchmark.

    Google "dirt 2" LA stadium stuttering.


    Again, where is your hard evidence or reviews?

    You don't even mention the resolution you are using... Next thing we know GTX 470s in SLi can't play DiRT2 at 1366x768!
  42. browsingtheworld said:
    Your claims contradict the facts:
    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/330?vs=293

    At 2560x1600 when more than 1GB of VRAM is used the GTX 560 Ti, which has less VRAM than the GTX 470 performs almost identically as the HD 6950 2GB in DiRT3, the game you specifically mention.

    Do you have any hard evidence with benchmarks and review? Otherwise it sounds like you're just making things up. I already gave clear examples such as DoF/ubersampling whereas you just claim to have these problems. I can just make up things and say I played game X with video card Y and it was smoother than game X with video card Z.

    All current evidence suggests that VRAM is not nearly as important as how fast the GPU is.


    The Civ. V is a funny benchie.

    The 560ti is neck to neck overall with the 6950 (I'll assume they used the 2GB on those). In fact, around 1920x1200 they tie in B:BC2, but the gtx560ti has the faster chip, but lower bandwidth and memory which shows above 1920x1200.

    Here are some links for the cards I'd suggest:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102929&cm_re=radeon_6950-_-14-102-929-_-Product

    and

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127565&cm_re=gtx560ti-_-14-127-565-_-Product

    Those 2 look quite good in my book.

    Cheers!
  43. Yuka said:
    The Civ. V is a funny benchie.

    The 560ti is neck to neck overall with the 6950 (I'll assume they used the 2GB on those). In fact, around 1920x1200 they tie in B:BC2, but the gtx560ti has the faster chip, but lower bandwidth and memory which shows above 1920x1200.

    Here are some links for the cards I'd suggest:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102929&cm_re=radeon_6950-_-14-102-929-_-Product

    and

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127565&cm_re=gtx560ti-_-14-127-565-_-Product

    Those 2 look quite good in my book.

    Cheers!


    I would probably avoid Sapphire if I was looking for a 2GB version for higher resolutions. This one has good ratings but not many reviews. XFX is a good choice.

    Civ5 is a horrible and nvidia biased benchmark.
  44. browsingtheworld said:
    Again, where is your hard evidence or reviews?

    You don't even mention the resolution you are using... Next thing we know GTX 470s in SLi can't play DiRT2 at 1366x768!


    I play at 1920x1200. If you typed in what I asked, you'd see tons of evidence of a problem on that LA stadium race with resolutions of 1080p. There are different ways to fix it, all of which require you to turn down a setting or 2. Turning Crowd down a notch took care of it for most, but a 2GB card could also fix it, as I later found out (at the time Dirt 2 came out, 2GB cards were not being sold except in rare cases).

    I can't show you "reviews" because all reviews use the built in benchmark, which does not use that stadium, and you can't even enter that stadium to late in the game. But you'd have to be blind not to see the google result as a sign of a problem on that map.
  45. bystander said:
    I play at 1920x1200. If you typed in what I asked, you'd see tons of evidence of a problem on that LA stadium race with resolutions of 1080p. There are different ways to fix it, all of which require you to turn down a setting or 2. Turning Crowd down a notch took care of it for most, but a 2GB card could also fix it, as I later found out (at the time Dirt 2 came out, 2GB cards were not being sold except in rare cases).

    I can't show you "reviews" because all reviews use the built in benchmark, which does not use that stadium, and you can't even enter that stadium to late in the game. But you'd have to be blind not to see the google result as a sign of a problem on that map.

    You should provide links to your "evidence" if you want to be taken seriously.
  46. browsingtheworld said:
    You should provide links to your "evidence" if you want to be taken seriously.


    Clearly, it wouldn't matter what I showed you, or anyone else shows you, as evidence by this post. I gave you an easy way for you to see for yourself. Clearly you don't care.
  47. http://forums.amd.com/game/messageview.cfm?catid=233&threadid=126077&messid=1100726&parentid=1090729&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Branch

    It's a lil' hard to find, but it is there, lol.

    About Civ. V... Facts are facts like you stated... Be it biased or not, it's still a game that shows the counter point to your argument. Come on, don't back down on what you link :P

    And what's wrong with Sapphire? I love sapphire and their Vapor-X line xD!

    On the contrary, I've seen a lot of XFX's seen a horrible thermal death several times, ugh. And I'm talking from the GF 4600TI times XD

    Cheers!
  48. bystander said:
    Clearly, it wouldn't matter what I showed you, or anyone else shows you, as evidence by this post. I gave you an easy way for you to see for yourself. Clearly you don't care.

    You said yourself to google it so I assumed there was some websites discussing the problem and the cause of it.

    Quote:


    If this was the best evidence on the web I think we should take it with a boulder of salt.

    I don't back off Anandbench, Anand does a much better job than most people on the web in their reviews. They were one of the few sites that said both the GTX 550 Ti and HD 6790 were overpriced and to pick up the GTX 460 768 while they are still around. Every review site but Tom's apparently says they are equal in performance at 1080p.

    I still see no solid evidence that 2GB of VRAM makes a difference for the 6950 and 560 (both of which can have 2GB models by the way) makes a different at 1080p.
  49. http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/05/20/asus_rog_matrix_5870_platinum_video_card_review/1

    Here is one of the hard reviews I was talking about. Check out the different games and see how the extra GB of memory helps. It doesn't help in all, but it does help in some.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Graphics