Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Please advise a video card upgrade

Tags:
  • Junk
  • ATI
  • Corsair
  • Graphics
  • Graphics Cards
  • HD
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 22, 2013 10:01:44 PM

Hey guys,

I want to upgrade my video card on my old PC to make sure I can run Black Ops and other at full settings and so that everything feels fluid.

My current junk is beggining of 2010:

1)Antec Twelve Hundred Black Steel ATX Full Tower
2)CORSAIR HX Series HX850 850W
3)ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX
4)Intel Core i7-920 Bloomfield 2.66GHz LGA 1366 130W Quad-Core Processor
5)Patriot Viper II ‘Sector 7’ Edition 12GB (3 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2000 (PC3 16000) Timing 9-11-9-27 PV7312G2000ELK
6)SAMSUNG 840 Pro Series MZ-7PD512BW 2.5" 512GB SATA III MLC (SSD)
7)XFX HD-587A-CNF9 Radeon HD 5870 2GB 256-bit Eyefinity 6 Edition Video Card
8) 3 x SAMSUNG B2330 Glossy Black 23" 5ms 1980x1080 but I game only on 1.

I thought to buy maybe ATI R9 280X ?

What do you think? Thanks

More about : advise video card upgrade

a b U Graphics card
December 22, 2013 10:14:02 PM

ur fine to go. the 920 is still good enough for the games. overclock ur cpu too btw :) 
a c 102 U Graphics card
December 22, 2013 10:16:07 PM

the 280x is an excellent card for 1080p gaming and is fairly future proof. The prices are elevated right now compared to what they should be. The gtx 770 is the nvidia alternative, but a select few games are pushing the 2gb at 1080p so there might be a few titles down the road that can't be played at max. the 770 is overall a slightly faster card, but the difference is not much. So a 280x or a 770 would fit great in your system, the rest of your hardware won't hold you back at all.
Related resources
December 22, 2013 10:29:20 PM

woltej1 said:
the 280x is an excellent card for 1080p gaming and is fairly future proof. The prices are elevated right now compared to what they should be. The gtx 770 is the nvidia alternative, but a select few games are pushing the 2gb at 1080p so there might be a few titles down the road that can't be played at max. the 770 is overall a slightly faster card, but the difference is not much. So a 280x or a 770 would fit great in your system, the rest of your hardware won't hold you back at all.


Thanks for feedbacks guys.

I run Blackops-Ghosts and put all on close to max it seemed to be managing, but with some lags here or there.
I tested on private matches, as they still have a lot of lagged dedicated servers or whatever they run it off..

You can tell it needs more processing. At the same time CPU only was loaded at 30-45% max.. Ram also was not an issue- all bases on windows performance monitor.

I thought 770 is 280x are pretty same, like you wont tell any difference on games? Am I wrong?

I had bad taste with GeForce in the past, aliasing etc, dead cards. That's why got ATI. Seems like ATI is somewhat better overall?

What brands do you recommend for any of them btw? Thanks
a b U Graphics card
December 22, 2013 10:32:58 PM

ati-sapphire,asus,msi,gigabyte,HIS,powercolor,xfx
nvidia-evga,asus,msi,gigabyte,galaxy,zotac
a c 102 U Graphics card
December 22, 2013 10:59:24 PM

Well there won't be a game that a 280x could play that a 770 wouldn't and vice versa, but some games can have 10-15 fps difference between the 2 cards, so a little homework on your favorite games and their benchmarks wouldn't hurt.
For me, ATI- Sapphire, asus, msi or gigabyte. The sapphire 280x toxic is the best 280x you can get.
Nvidia, evga, asus, msi and gigabyte
December 22, 2013 11:24:15 PM

Thanks.
I noticed in your sig, you have 2x 280x? Why did you get 2? Are you doing something specific where you need 2? Any benefit for gaming under 2k resolution?
a b U Graphics card
December 22, 2013 11:28:02 PM

for higher resolutions without breaking the bank, the fellow member has crossfired his card to gain additional fps. higher resolutions req high end gpus for processing. theabove member has got 2 280x or crossfired them for smooth & intensive gameplay.
December 23, 2013 1:56:25 PM

caj said:
for higher resolutions without breaking the bank, the fellow member has crossfired his card to gain additional fps. higher resolutions req high end gpus for processing. theabove member has got 2 280x or crossfired them for smooth & intensive gameplay.


Thanks, I figured. Must be for above 2k resolutions..
Looking at prices now 280x above $410 range still... Wonder if I should hold off, but who knows when are they gonna have a significant drop.. Maybe 770 is an option too. Not sure if I want to go back to geForce though :) 
a c 102 U Graphics card
December 23, 2013 4:43:52 PM

By Dual x I mean I have sapphire's Dual X model of the 280x. But yes, multi monitor or 4k gaming would require multiple cards with 3+GB of RAM. You can find 280x's for 320 in some places, but most places have inflated prices still.
December 23, 2013 5:34:47 PM

As long as the 280X is over $400 the GTX 770 is the better pick for around $350, though there isn't much at 1920x1080 that a GTX 760 won't handle for $250. You can always check specific titles and resolutions in Tom's graphics card charts too.
December 23, 2013 8:03:35 PM

lowguppy said:
As long as the 280X is over $400 the GTX 770 is the better pick for around $350, though there isn't much at 1920x1080 that a GTX 760 won't handle for $250. You can always check specific titles and resolutions in Tom's graphics card charts too.


Thanks. 760 would be an economy move, but afraid i wont be able to run everything maxed out and feel fluid response. What's a great frame rate normally? 60fps mean no lag at all?
a b U Graphics card
December 23, 2013 8:11:50 PM

depends acc to the game, game engine, resolution, gaming settings, mobo rig, cpu etc.... all factors vary
a c 102 U Graphics card
December 23, 2013 8:19:23 PM

well most monitors refresh at 60hz, or 60 times a second so a graphics card doing anything above that won't increase the fluid of the game. But usually playable is considered around 45fps, below that the human eye will start to see choppiness in a game.
December 23, 2013 10:39:49 PM

An average of 60fps is considered pretty safe because it is an average and leaves a wide margin for variance. Tom's also tracks minimum frame rates to get a better picture of how a card handles the most demanding aspects of a specific title. You don't want a min frame rate dropping below 30 fps. Movies and TV are 29.97 fps, which is enough to appear smooth to the human eye, but they're constant and frame rates in games are not.

All that said, the conclusion of the 760 review article was that "Truly, this is the upper end of the spectrum for gaming on a 1920x1080 display." The only title where the 770 made a difference at 1080p with max settings was the GPU punishing Crysis 3, and even then it was 52 vs 46 fps avg and 35 vs 29 min. In the more recent CoD4 challenge didn't include a 760 for some reason, but the very slightly slower 670 was only 5-7 frames behind the 770 even at ultra settings and still pulling at least 45 fps min. In short, you don't need a GTX 770 to max out settings at 1920x1080, a 760 will give you just as good results at that resolution.
a c 102 U Graphics card
December 23, 2013 11:00:24 PM

There are multiple benchmarks of games where the 760 falls double digit FPS behind a 770 at 1920x1080, some where the difference is playable vs non playable. The 760 is far from a 1080p maxing machine. It is most definitely playable at 1080p, but will not max out the higher tier of graphic demanding games and isn't future proofed at all. It will age terribly if you want to max 1080p.
December 23, 2013 11:22:53 PM

In this site's benchmarks at least, the only times the 760 was more than 5-7 fps behind the 770 was at frame rates well over 60 fps, and only Crysis 3 and CoD4 had that gap between 30 and 60 fps. Even then, the 760 barely skimmed under 30 min fps, maintaining an average of 45. (again, 1080p max details)

The reason future-proofing a video card is almost impossible is because the biggest factor is resolution. The 770 can do 2560x1440 at medium settings, but you're probably better off sticking to 1080 with all the eye candy. 4K at highest settings is going to require a second card at the bare minimum. We're at least 2 generations away from a single GPU that can do that.
December 24, 2013 3:26:45 PM

Thanks for incoming feedback. I figured to get 280x Toxic then. It looks like with 3GB under 2k resolution. Its priced way high though. All i can find is above $460.. At the same time 770 around $360... I wonder when prices will drop.. heh

update: broke down, got GTX for $389 (free ship) Gigabyte 770 with 4GB ram
Will see how it will fair :) 
!