Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GPU for Next 5 years !!!

Tags:
  • GPUs
  • Titan
  • Resolution
  • Games
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 27, 2013 2:41:14 AM

hi all
I am looking for a GPU that will be suite for next 5 years to play games on max resolution !
I know now Nvidia Titan is awful, but will it be fit for that period time ?
put in mind Titan price is 1200$, while PS4 will around 400$
and I know that console game does not need any hardware upgrades. that means after 10 years you will still play games on optimal resolution on PS4 !

what do you think guys ?

More about : gpu years

July 27, 2013 6:18:53 AM

The gtx 780 is almost as good as the titan and it's $550 cheaper. There is no doubt in my mind that it will last you five years. If you were to buy a ps4 I don't think it will last you 10 year. Consoles usually would last me 3 or 4 years then die. My first ps3 lasted me about two years then the blue ray reader quit working then it had the yellow light of death shortly after. So yeah the gtx 780 has more than twice the power of the ps4 GPU so I don't see why it wouldn't last you a long time.
July 27, 2013 10:52:18 AM

swilczak said:
The gtx 780 is almost as good as the titan and it's $550 cheaper. There is no doubt in my mind that it will last you five years. If you were to buy a ps4 I don't think it will last you 10 year. Consoles usually would last me 3 or 4 years then die. My first ps3 lasted me about two years then the blue ray reader quit working then it had the yellow light of death shortly after. So yeah the gtx 780 has more than twice the power of the ps4 GPU so I don't see why it wouldn't last you a long time.



hi dear,
Hardware damage could infect all systems whether PS4, Desktop, TVs ...etc.
to be honest with you, I never tried to use such Professional GPU in my life and see the results.
but from my general knowledge, every one or two years I see PC gamers complain that their GPUs do not match the new games MAX resolution?
and they have to upgrade their desktop. as you see obviously, GPUs manufacture companies produce new GPU every year.
this is my main concern I am thinking about it.
Related resources
July 27, 2013 10:56:45 AM

oudmaster said:
swilczak said:
The gtx 780 is almost as good as the titan and it's $550 cheaper. There is no doubt in my mind that it will last you five years. If you were to buy a ps4 I don't think it will last you 10 year. Consoles usually would last me 3 or 4 years then die. My first ps3 lasted me about two years then the blue ray reader quit working then it had the yellow light of death shortly after. So yeah the gtx 780 has more than twice the power of the ps4 GPU so I don't see why it wouldn't last you a long time.

there is one other option also
sell your gpu and buy a new one each year

hi dear,
Hardware damage could infect all systems whether PS4, Desktop, TVs ...etc.
to be honest with you, I never tried to use such Professional GPU in my life and see the results.
but from my general knowledge, every one or two years I see PC gamers complain that their GPUs do not match the new games MAX resolution?
and they have to upgrade their desktop. as you see obviously, GPUs manufacture companies produce new GPU every year.
this is my main concern I am thinking about it.


July 27, 2013 11:08:17 AM

Nothing will last 5 years.
July 27, 2013 11:34:48 AM

I never said you could max out all of your games for the next 5 years. I would imagine that in 5 years from now the 780 will still play games well on medium settings with high resolution. Consoles are basically PC's but made with cheap parts, so it's likely that a well built PC will last you longer. Many PC gamers are obsessed with always having the best stuff on the market, so those are the ones that will always want to buy a GPU every year, when really they don't need a new one. It all depends on what type of person you are. I still see some PC gamers using graphics cards from a few generations ago, so not everyone is like that.
July 27, 2013 1:21:34 PM

thanks swilczak for your relpy again

last question
why on console games there is no option to change graphic settings, while on PC there is ?
July 27, 2013 1:42:19 PM

Simply put you can buy a card that'll last you 5 years because consoles new release about every 8 years or so, what that means is some PC games may be a stretch if their really big but all in all mainstream games have to play according to the tech that's available within a console.

So that being said what do you need? well depends on your budget so first question is ..... what is that? $$$

Secondly the only way to future proof is to have high end specs, so high VRAM, high bandwidth, high GFX capabilities.

The only issue we'll ever run into is a change in tech that becomes mainstream, you easily have a 4-5 year window here.

For god sake we've had multi core CPU's for years and are only now moving out of dual core games, people scare monger too much.
July 27, 2013 2:25:38 PM

oudmaster said:
thanks swilczak for your relpy again

last question
why on console games there is no option to change graphic settings, while on PC there is ?

The way I see it is that PC's are for advanced users and consoles are for beginners or for kids.
Games are set to run a certain way and at a certain frame rate on consoles, basically optimized for the best possible performance with the hardware they have to work with. PC's can have a million different combinations of hardware, so they allow you to customize settings based on what hardware you have. Some PC games will automatically choose best setting for you, but they are never the settings I want so I love to do some trial and error until I get the settings how I want them.
July 28, 2013 10:02:29 AM

thanks all for your replies
this seems there is no end for it, because I am at beginning level.

if you see GPU spec you will notice at the beginning GPU Clock speed like
GTX Titan 836 Mhz
GTX 690 915 MHz
GTX 680 1006Mhz

so what do those numbers mean to you ??
July 28, 2013 10:41:15 AM

oudmaster said:
thanks all for your replies
this seems there is no end for it, because I am at beginning level.

if you see GPU spec you will notice at the beginning GPU Clock speed like
GTX Titan 836 Mhz
GTX 690 915 MHz
GTX 680 1006Mhz

so what do those numbers mean to you ??


In a graphics card there are shaders which are like the cores in a CPU kinda, but there are a lot of them. The 836mhz is the clock speed of the individual shaders, or as NVidia calls them "cuda cores" and AMD calls them "stream processors". The titan has a slower clock speed but more cuda cores than the gtx 680 so it's a more powerful card because of that. There are many other factors to consider like memory speed, memory bandwidth, memory bus width and some other really technical things that I don't really understand completely.
July 28, 2013 11:59:39 AM

THANKS AGAIN
IT IS CLEAR NOW
August 3, 2013 11:35:52 AM

by the way
GTX TITAN : 876MHz * 2688 = 2,354,688

does 2,354,688 Mhz mean the total clock speed capacity of GTX Titan ???
August 3, 2013 12:20:29 PM

I think it would be different than multiplying each core by the core clock although in theory it should mean that. It's really so complicated that I can't really understand it or explain it. I just know more shaders usually means more power, and the fabrication like 28nm or 20nm has a lot to do with it's power and efficiency. AMD will be releasing a 20nm chip in two months which will be better technology than the current AMD and NVidia 28nm chips. 20nm basically means the transistors are closer together allowing the engineers to fit more transistors in a smaller space with less heat more power and greater efficiency.
August 5, 2013 10:31:16 AM

ok swilczak

Q/ will I get double performance if I combine two GTX Titan for example ?

I saw people combine 4 GTX Titan together through SLI
why would we need to do such a thing ?
August 5, 2013 10:49:29 AM

You won't get double, probably anywhere from 50 to 80 percent increase, depending on if the game is optimized to work with dual GPU's. Enthusiasts will combine 4 GPU's on a high end system usually when running multiple monitors, or when running a very high resolution on something like Crysis 3 where a lot of power is needed to get high frame rates. For the most part you would be wasting your money to do something like that unless you have a lot of money to spend and you want the absolute best. Really one Titan or GTX 780 by itself will be enough to get you high frame rates at 1080p when settings are maxed out on every game except Crysis 3. For some reason the anti-aliasing on Crysis 3 really slows things down.
August 5, 2013 10:50:58 AM

oudmaster said:
ok swilczak

Q/ will I get double performance if I combine two GTX Titan for example ?

I saw people combine 4 GTX Titan together through SLI
why would we need to do such a thing ?


to increase performance
4 gtx titan= max everything out at 6 1920x1080 displays (maybe) ot max out a resolution like 3046x2048
2 gtx titans will give you the performance of 2x the performance of of 1 titan
titan is a waste of money, you should buy a gtx780
August 5, 2013 12:33:03 PM

Presler said:
Nvidia cards infact are preferrable for long term investment. Because there drivers tend to mature with time and make the hardware more usable with time. And about comparing it with ps3 or ps4, just try any of the 700 series card you'll have all the answers.

That sounds like fanboy talk. If anything AMD will be a better long term investment since developers are working to optimize games for AMD GPU's right now with the launch of the all AMD consoles in about 3 months. Maybe NVidia was a better long term investment at one time but probably not this time around.
August 6, 2013 12:21:23 AM

swilczak said:
Presler said:
Nvidia cards infact are preferrable for long term investment. Because there drivers tend to mature with time and make the hardware more usable with time. And about comparing it with ps3 or ps4, just try any of the 700 series card you'll have all the answers.

That sounds like fanboy talk. If anything AMD will be a better long term investment since developers are working to optimize games for AMD GPU's right now with the launch of the all AMD consoles in about 3 months. Maybe NVidia was a better long term investment at one time but probably not this time around.


"better optimized for AMD" only means 1-3fps more from the competitor card.
People say that i5 quad cores will get extinct after the new consoles are introduced, that however would not matter as i5 will dish out the same solid performance.

it is hard to say which card can be a long term investment but i had a 9800gtx+ and it worked for 6 years. I recently just sold it.
August 6, 2013 5:39:59 AM

muzzpro said:
swilczak said:
Presler said:
Nvidia cards infact are preferrable for long term investment. Because there drivers tend to mature with time and make the hardware more usable with time. And about comparing it with ps3 or ps4, just try any of the 700 series card you'll have all the answers.

That sounds like fanboy talk. If anything AMD will be a better long term investment since developers are working to optimize games for AMD GPU's right now with the launch of the all AMD consoles in about 3 months. Maybe NVidia was a better long term investment at one time but probably not this time around.


"better optimized for AMD" only means 1-3fps more from the competitor card.
People say that i5 quad cores will get extinct after the new consoles are introduced, that however would not matter as i5 will dish out the same solid performance.

it is hard to say which card can be a long term investment but i had a 9800gtx+ and it worked for 6 years. I recently just sold it.

It's more than 2 or 3 fps. What happens is the games work well with AMD right from the launch date of the game, and it may or may not work well with NVidia because they don't access to the code of the game until after it's launched so they need to hurry up and updates drivers to work well with the game. It happened with Tomb Raider recently. People always want to defend whatever hardware they own. If you read this article it says games will be optimized for AMD everything both graphics and CPU.


http://techreport.com/news/24976/refuted-bf4-other-fros...
August 6, 2013 8:09:33 AM

swilczak said:
muzzpro said:
swilczak said:
Presler said:
Nvidia cards infact are preferrable for long term investment. Because there drivers tend to mature with time and make the hardware more usable with time. And about comparing it with ps3 or ps4, just try any of the 700 series card you'll have all the answers.

That sounds like fanboy talk. If anything AMD will be a better long term investment since developers are working to optimize games for AMD GPU's right now with the launch of the all AMD consoles in about 3 months. Maybe NVidia was a better long term investment at one time but probably not this time around.


"better optimized for AMD" only means 1-3fps more from the competitor card.
People say that i5 quad cores will get extinct after the new consoles are introduced, that however would not matter as i5 will dish out the same solid performance.

it is hard to say which card can be a long term investment but i had a 9800gtx+ and it worked for 6 years. I recently just sold it.

It's more than 2 or 3 fps. What happens is the games work well with AMD right from the launch date of the game, and it may or may not work well with NVidia because they don't access to the code of the game until after it's launched so they need to hurry up and updates drivers to work well with the game. It happened with Tomb Raider recently. People always want to defend whatever hardware they own. If you read this article it says games will be optimized for AMD everything both graphics and CPU.


http://techreport.com/news/24976/refuted-bf4-other-fros...

your point being that Nvidia users would only have to wait 1 week or so after the game is released, that doesn't bother me (prices go down after a month and that's when i buy games)

Gpus like gtx680 vs hd7970 will perform almost the same, only difference is gtx680 would be better suited to play after 1 week of the game supporting AMD.

PC genre also helps make companies like EA and Activision make millions (maybe billions) they won't rip us off by making games only more focussed towards AMD users.

August 6, 2013 8:31:38 AM

oudmaster said:
hi all
I am looking for a GPU that will be suite for next 5 years to play games on max resolution !
I know now Nvidia Titan is awful, but will it be fit for that period time ?
put in mind Titan price is 1200$, while PS4 will around 400$
and I know that console game does not need any hardware upgrades. that means after 10 years you will still play games on optimal resolution on PS4 !

what do you think guys ?


Well as far as titan a superclock/overclocked 780 would beat a titan for less so imo i think its the best-single gpu you can get then you can have the option to sli in the future. As far as ps4 you get what you pay for yes they are well optimized for gaming but as low as the specs is going to be performance wise im not into buying the ps4/xbone and its true gaming should be about games but i want great games + great performance =pc gaming
August 6, 2013 8:39:54 AM

muzzpro said:
swilczak said:
muzzpro said:
swilczak said:
Presler said:
Nvidia cards infact are preferrable for long term investment. Because there drivers tend to mature with time and make the hardware more usable with time. And about comparing it with ps3 or ps4, just try any of the 700 series card you'll have all the answers.

That sounds like fanboy talk. If anything AMD will be a better long term investment since developers are working to optimize games for AMD GPU's right now with the launch of the all AMD consoles in about 3 months. Maybe NVidia was a better long term investment at one time but probably not this time around.


"better optimized for AMD" only means 1-3fps more from the competitor card.
People say that i5 quad cores will get extinct after the new consoles are introduced, that however would not matter as i5 will dish out the same solid performance.

it is hard to say which card can be a long term investment but i had a 9800gtx+ and it worked for 6 years. I recently just sold it.

It's more than 2 or 3 fps. What happens is the games work well with AMD right from the launch date of the game, and it may or may not work well with NVidia because they don't access to the code of the game until after it's launched so they need to hurry up and updates drivers to work well with the game. It happened with Tomb Raider recently. People always want to defend whatever hardware they own. If you read this article it says games will be optimized for AMD everything both graphics and CPU.


http://techreport.com/news/24976/refuted-bf4-other-fros...

your point being that Nvidia users would only have to wait 1 week or so after the game is released, that doesn't bother me (prices go down after a month and that's when i buy games)

Gpus like gtx680 vs hd7970 will perform almost the same, only difference is gtx680 would be better suited to play after 1 week of the game supporting AMD.

PC genre also helps make companies like EA and Activision make millions (maybe billions) they won't rip us off by making games only more focussed towards AMD users.


Yeah I'm sure NVidia and Intel will figure it out, I mean they have enough money, especially Intel. Nobody will be getting ripped off but people who currently have an AMD system may see better results when gaming in the future as long as they have the most recent hardware.
August 6, 2013 9:02:49 AM

In the end of the day both components can operate your PCs, just because AMD took the console market it doesn't mean Intel or Nvdia are going to completely fall off, same way AMD is still fine atm.

But yes there will definitely be a swing to cater more toward AMD's architecture however seeing as its inferior (slightly) to Intel ....... is that a good thing??
August 6, 2013 9:23:25 AM

Diamond-HP said:
In the end of the day both components can operate your PCs, just because AMD took the console market it doesn't mean Intel or Nvdia are going to completely fall off, same way AMD is still fine atm.

But yes there will definitely be a swing to cater more toward AMD's architecture however seeing as its inferior (slightly) to Intel ....... is that a good thing??


my point is, at the same price range
AMD=NVIDIA (graphics card)
AMD=INTEL (Processor)

also i want to say one thing off topic, Amd is getting better which each new hardware it introduces, either gpu or cpu. there new 200$ processor is almost on par with an i5 in gaming but unlike an i5, FX8350 is better in rendering images.
on the other hand intel is not focusing on the cpu power, haswell is another rebadged sandy bridge with a better gpu (HD4600); Intel is thus making me angry as they are making no effort to further improve cpu performance. One reason why i think AMD will catch up to intel very soon and this total monopoly of Intel will break.
Intel is so far ahead of AMD that in my country there is no distributor of AMD cpus.
August 6, 2013 10:49:44 AM

Maybe your being a bit hard on Intel? maybe we're at a technological bottle neck between increased power vs temperature vs power consumption?

We already know AMD's new CPU FX 9*** series won't even be released on the mainstream consumers because it's too juicy.
August 6, 2013 3:26:28 PM

muzzpro said:
Diamond-HP said:
In the end of the day both components can operate your PCs, just because AMD took the console market it doesn't mean Intel or Nvdia are going to completely fall off, same way AMD is still fine atm.

But yes there will definitely be a swing to cater more toward AMD's architecture however seeing as its inferior (slightly) to Intel ....... is that a good thing??


my point is, at the same price range
AMD=NVIDIA (graphics card)
AMD=INTEL (Processor)

also i want to say one thing off topic, Amd is getting better which each new hardware it introduces, either gpu or cpu. there new 200$ processor is almost on par with an i5 in gaming but unlike an i5, FX8350 is better in rendering images.
on the other hand intel is not focusing on the cpu power, haswell is another rebadged sandy bridge with a better gpu (HD4600); Intel is thus making me angry as they are making no effort to further improve cpu performance. One reason why i think AMD will catch up to intel very soon and this total monopoly of Intel will break.
Intel is so far ahead of AMD that in my country there is no distributor of AMD cpus.

Intel doesn't care about anything other than where the money is at so they decided to focus more on mobile platforms because they know there is big money in that these days. I hope they do focus on some good desktop CPU's because I have plans to build a nice new Intel system in the next 2 or 3 years.
August 7, 2013 1:17:39 AM

swilczak said:
muzzpro said:
Diamond-HP said:
In the end of the day both components can operate your PCs, just because AMD took the console market it doesn't mean Intel or Nvdia are going to completely fall off, same way AMD is still fine atm.

But yes there will definitely be a swing to cater more toward AMD's architecture however seeing as its inferior (slightly) to Intel ....... is that a good thing??


my point is, at the same price range
AMD=NVIDIA (graphics card)
AMD=INTEL (Processor)

also i want to say one thing off topic, Amd is getting better which each new hardware it introduces, either gpu or cpu. there new 200$ processor is almost on par with an i5 in gaming but unlike an i5, FX8350 is better in rendering images.
on the other hand intel is not focusing on the cpu power, haswell is another rebadged sandy bridge with a better gpu (HD4600); Intel is thus making me angry as they are making no effort to further improve cpu performance. One reason why i think AMD will catch up to intel very soon and this total monopoly of Intel will break.
Intel is so far ahead of AMD that in my country there is no distributor of AMD cpus.

Intel doesn't care about anything other than where the money is at so they decided to focus more on mobile platforms because they know there is big money in that these days. I hope they do focus on some good desktop CPU's because I have plans to build a nice new Intel system in the next 2 or 3 years.


same here, i am not settling on haswell right now
my core2quad still buffs out a lot of performance, only some MMOFPS like PS2 and games like crysis3 NEED a core i5
August 7, 2013 1:35:33 AM

What the fist poster said.
I7 + 780.
You will not be able to max games out for the next 5 years though.
August 13, 2013 3:36:22 PM

swilczak said:
Presler said:
Nvidia cards infact are preferrable for long term investment. Because there drivers tend to mature with time and make the hardware more usable with time. And about comparing it with ps3 or ps4, just try any of the 700 series card you'll have all the answers.

That sounds like fanboy talk. If anything AMD will be a better long term investment since developers are working to optimize games for AMD GPU's right now with the launch of the all AMD consoles in about 3 months. Maybe NVidia was a better long term investment at one time but probably not this time around.


Everytime someone mentions amd drivers its fanboy talk. Its true amd need help on they drivers and its been proven maybe in time people would give amd more credit but as of now they just not as good as nvidias and thats fact. Hopefully both amd and nvidia can be equal but as of now i got to say nvidia is doing it

Djentleman said:
What the fist poster said.
I7 + 780.
You will not be able to max games out for the next 5 years though.


August 13, 2013 6:53:21 PM

determinologyz said:
swilczak said:
Presler said:
Nvidia cards infact are preferrable for long term investment. Because there drivers tend to mature with time and make the hardware more usable with time. And about comparing it with ps3 or ps4, just try any of the 700 series card you'll have all the answers.

That sounds like fanboy talk. If anything AMD will be a better long term investment since developers are working to optimize games for AMD GPU's right now with the launch of the all AMD consoles in about 3 months. Maybe NVidia was a better long term investment at one time but probably not this time around.


Everytime someone mentions amd drivers its fanboy talk. Its true amd need help on they drivers and its been proven maybe in time people would give amd more credit but as of now they just not as good as nvidias and thats fact. Hopefully both amd and nvidia can be equal but as of now i got to say nvidia is doing it

Djentleman said:
What the fist poster said.
I7 + 780.
You will not be able to max games out for the next 5 years though.



Why quote me if you're not going to say anything?

August 13, 2013 7:23:17 PM

Didnt mean to quote you and i wrote above your quote
August 13, 2013 7:31:43 PM

determinologyz said:
Didnt mean to quote you and i wrote above your quote


Oh :p 
!