Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking for $300 video card to play Crysis 3 on maximum settings.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 12, 2013 6:26:14 AM

Firstly, if I can wait a bit longer this year I can stretch my budget to $350.

Secondly, I know Crysis 3 hasn't been officially released yet and AMD drivers haven't been fully optimized for the game. That being said, Google search showed GTX 680 or Radeon 7970 is needed for optimal or high-performance settings. Will either card safely run on Antec NEO 620C with overclocked CPU and RAM? How much OC headroom would I have for the card using my current PSU?

Third, which brand and model/variant would you recommend?

Fourth, what is the difference between the Sapphire 7970 Dual-X and Vapor-X?

Win 7 Ult x64
a b U Graphics card
February 12, 2013 6:49:15 AM

a 680 can run at 550w if im not mistaken (according to specs). so it is safe i think.

i havent checked the prices but last time i saw it, a 680 is not 350.

to give an idea, my 670 (paired with 4ghz procie) could only get 40-60 fps at max settings.
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 87 U Graphics card
February 12, 2013 7:31:04 AM

Just throwing out there, a 680 is only 5% faster than a 670, but it's 25-30% faster.

If that were the difference between running at a minimum of 60 fps on ultra and not, then it might be worth it... but it's not the difference, so it's not worth it in any way shape or form.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 12, 2013 12:57:20 PM

Stealth3si said:
Firstly, if I can wait a bit longer this year I can stretch my budget to $350.

Secondly, I know Crysis 3 hasn't been officially released yet and AMD drivers haven't been fully optimized for the game. That being said, Google search showed GTX 680 or Radeon 7970 is needed for optimal or high-performance settings. Will either card safely run on Antec NEO 620C with overclocked CPU and RAM? How much OC headroom would I have for the card using my current PSU?

Third, which brand and model/variant would you recommend?

Fourth, what is the difference between the Sapphire 7970 Dual-X and Vapor-X?

Win 7 Ult x64


Ima see how the final copy plays but ima upgrade to a 780 or 770 for sure
m
0
l
March 9, 2013 12:29:28 AM

Now that the game has been officially released, to play the game on HIGH settings, as opposed to VERY HIGH settings, is the 670 better than the 7970, since the Crysis 3 website says a 680 or 7970 is needed for 'optimal' settings?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
March 9, 2013 12:41:03 AM

Stealth3si said:
Now that the game has been officially released, to play the game on HIGH settings, as opposed to VERY HIGH settings, is the 670 better than the 7970, since the Crysis 3 website says a 680 or 7970 is needed for 'optimal' settings?

The 7970 beats the 670 at stock speeds easily. My 7970 OC beats out the 680 in benchmarks. I can play crysis 3 on ultra with minimal drops. Only time the fps starts to struggle is when things get massively busy, and only for a few seconds.
m
0
l
March 10, 2013 8:55:23 AM

toastybatch565 said:
The Radeon HD 7950 can overclock to be as fast as the 7970 and the gtx 670, so if you aren't afraid of overclocking it, which is easy, you should probably get that.

I might buy a single 7950 instead and overclock it on air, no CF, and reach 7970 performance levels.

Currently, which is the better card out of these three cards in terms of cooler, PCB, temps, noise and price?

1.) Sapphire 100352-3L Dual-X 7950 with boost

2.) Vapor-X 7950

3.) MSI Twin Frozr R7950?

Edit: I was just doing some research and I think I might go with the MSI.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
March 13, 2013 6:59:43 PM

toastybatch565 said:
bystander said:
The biggest issue with Crysis 3 is going to be your CPU. You need at least an Intel i5 or better for a min of 31 FPS or higher.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performanc...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performanc...

You'll also need a 7970 or better paired with an i5 or better. No AMD CPU tested was above the 20's in min FPS and Nvidia seems to be favored in Crysis 3.


Actually the 7950 ranked quite high on the benchmark tests, and it is very much playable. Also, he will be overclocking, and the 7950 can OC to be on par or even better than the 670 or the 7970. His processor will be a problem, that is correct.


When I say you need at least a 7970, that is with factory clocks. If you OC something, it can move up, but I can't assume that. The other cards can also be OC'ed.
m
0
l
July 22, 2013 12:39:10 AM

Stealth3si said:
Firstly, if I can wait a bit longer this year I can stretch my budget to $350.

Secondly, I know Crysis 3 hasn't been officially released yet and AMD drivers haven't been fully optimized for the game. That being said, Google search showed GTX 680 or Radeon 7970 is needed for optimal or high-performance settings. Will either card safely run on Antec NEO 620C with overclocked CPU and RAM? How much OC headroom would I have for the card using my current PSU?

Third, which brand and model/variant would you recommend?

Fourth, what is the difference between the Sapphire 7970 Dual-X and Vapor-X?

Win 7 Ult x64


I'm running an MSI Twin Frozr III 7950 3GB and it's able to pull very decent frame rates at 1080p with everything maxed, AA set to FXAA.
m
0
l
July 22, 2013 12:58:42 AM

I love gtx 780 with 1600p !!!!!
m
0
l
a c 116 U Graphics card
July 22, 2013 6:22:29 AM

Stealth3si said:
toastybatch565 said:
The Radeon HD 7950 can overclock to be as fast as the 7970 and the gtx 670, so if you aren't afraid of overclocking it, which is easy, you should probably get that.

I might buy a single 7950 instead and overclock it on air, no CF, and reach 7970 performance levels.

Currently, which is the better card out of these three cards in terms of cooler, PCB, temps, noise and price?

1.) Sapphire 100352-3L Dual-X 7950 with boost

2.) Vapor-X 7950

3.) MSI Twin Frozr R7950?

Edit: I was just doing some research and I think I might go with the MSI.


Or maybe wait a little longer & get the gtx 770, someone will adv it below $400
2-3 months from now.

If you don't want to wait for that to happen, go for the vapor-x 7950 model.

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2013 6:42:28 AM

If you want to stretch your budget and get the best card for the job then get a Gigabyte GTX 770 WF http://amzn.to/12pHgyy Otherwise, you should get an EVGA GTX 760 SC w/ ACX http://amzn.to/15J0OZX which is a refreshed GTX 670.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2013 7:25:53 AM

byogamingpc said:
If you want to stretch your budget and get the best card for the job then get a Gigabyte GTX 770 WF http://amzn.to/12pHgyy Otherwise, you should get an EVGA GTX 760 SC w/ ACX http://amzn.to/15J0OZX which is a refreshed GTX 670.


I agree with you on this i have the 770 my self and its a very great card at its price while the 760 is very well priced to. I feel the 780 is over priced and should of been at 550 instead of 649ish give or take. The 880/870 will be less but more powerful then the current 770/780 and will be off the maxwell tech
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 22, 2013 7:26:46 AM

toastybatch565 said:
bystander said:
I have a 5870 that can run Crysis 3 at max too...but at what average and minimum FPS?

http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance...

25 average FPS is not playable by most peoples standards.


Also, thats the first 7950 you're looking at. The boost gets 29 fps from this benchmark, and personally, it isn't noticable. I've been playing console all my life up until a couple months ago when I built my first PC, so I'm used to 30 or under fps in games. And remember, this benchmark was taken in a demanding area. Most areas I get about 35 fps, and with a slight OC, not even increasing voltage, I get almost around 38. Dips under 30 do still happen however, but their not very noticeable.


30 fps is to low for me well depending on who makes the game as well
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
July 22, 2013 3:06:37 PM

toastybatch565 said:
Also, thats the first 7950 you're looking at. The boost gets 29 fps from this benchmark, and personally, it isn't noticable. I've been playing console all my life up until a couple months ago when I built my first PC, so I'm used to 30 or under fps in games. And remember, this benchmark was taken in a demanding area. Most areas I get about 35 fps, and with a slight OC, not even increasing voltage, I get almost around 38. Dips under 30 do still happen however, but their not very noticeable.


For most people, that is too low. At least for most on the forums. I'm especially sensitive to low FPS/latency, and I'd be sick and laying on my bed after just 30 mins of playing at that low of FPS. I need at least 60 FPS to be considered playable, but I recognize that 40 FPS is about where most people need it. Any dips below 30 FPS is unplayable by most.

This applies to 1st person games. Isometric games, and side scrollers are far less of a problem.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
July 22, 2013 4:14:18 PM

There is a reason I suggest a 7970, and warned that he may not be able to max it even then. I even showed a chart so he can see what it takes and he can see the FPS he'd get. Because I recognize it isn't about me, I even mentioned you'd want about 40 FPS to be playable (I require much more). It is rare that people are happy with lower.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
July 22, 2013 6:09:43 PM

toastybatch565 said:
bystander said:
There is a reason I suggest a 7970, and warned that he may not be able to max it even then. I even showed a chart so he can see what it takes and he can see the FPS he'd get. Because I recognize it isn't about me, I even mentioned you'd want about 40 FPS to be playable (I require much more). It is rare that people are happy with lower.


I guess being used to consoles has made me tolerant of 30 fps. I was just suggesting a card in his price range that performs well.


30 FPS using a joystick or keyboard for turning isn't so bad. The problem is when you mix in the mouse, which exposes just how much latency there is at that low of FPS. Joysticks work on the concept of press and wait until you get where you are aiming. Mice are more of point and the view should follow suit instantly. Point and wait input isn't so bad at 30 FPS, as you are waiting either way. Having the view have a large delay on mouse movements is very uncomfortable to most.

Anyways, it's up to him on what he finds acceptable.
m
0
l
!