This has to be a joke right ? 290x lighting @ £240

TNA · 21 Dec 2014 at 15:00

Kaapstad said:
+1

Well it turns out it is a true and accurate statement, Gibbo won't be asking £520 for a Lightning 290X again.

Indeed. Lol

Jono8 · 21 Dec 2014 at 15:12

Always stay a generation behind and pick up the previous generations top tier when it gets sold off at bargain prices.

Best way to not get your pants pulled down by rip off products.

This applies to most things as well - eg always buy last years TV model once the new one comes out. You get pretty much the same thing but hundreds of pounds cheaper.

Bonjour · 21 Dec 2014 at 16:08

I've picked up two R9 290s, which have successfully flashed to 290x, for £145 each over the last few months.

A ridiculous amount of performance for the money. I'm hoping they'll see me through the next gen, then I'll probably do the same towards the end of their lifecycle.

opethdisciple · 21 Dec 2014 at 16:16

Jono8 said:
Always stay a generation behind and pick up the previous generations top tier when it gets sold off at bargain prices.

Best way to not get your pants pulled down by rip off products.

This applies to most things as well - eg always buy last years TV model once the new one comes out. You get pretty much the same thing but hundreds of pounds cheaper.

True to a point. But timing also matters. No point for example buying last year top 2Gb card, when you know the next gen of games that have already strarted to appear require 4Gb.

Schizo · 21 Dec 2014 at 16:26

I never buy a up to date card,im on a gigabyte windforce 670,will be looking at getting a 780 in the next 6 months,always stay a few behind,better value for moneu.

opethdisciple · 21 Dec 2014 at 16:29

schizo said:
I never buy a up to date card,im on a gigabyte windforce 670,will be looking at getting a 780 in the next 6 months,always stay a few behind,better value for moneu.

Suppose so. But honestly, I think 4Gb is the minimum vram req. (Even at 1080p)

In other words "beware of false economies".

Schizo · 21 Dec 2014 at 16:33

My card does what i want it to,i have a 30" dell monitor and never have a problem playing anything.

Why buy a £600 card when you know in 6 months your going to sell it ?

Tonester0011 · 21 Dec 2014 at 17:11

opethdisciple said:
Suppose so. But honestly, I think 4Gb is the minimum vram req. (Even at 1080p)

In other words "beware of false economies".

To quote Rusty:

'All depends on the game. You can't apply an arbitrary limit to the amount of VRAM which is acceptable'

opethdisciple · 21 Dec 2014 at 17:24

Tonester0011 said:
To quote Rusty:

'All depends on the game. You can't apply an arbitrary limit to the amount of VRAM which is acceptable'

I don't want this to turn in to a back and forth argument. But it's hardly an 'arbitrary' limit I've picked out of the sky at random.

There are many games that need more than 2Gb of VRAM even at 1080p. In fact you need more than 3Gb.

To name just a few:

1. AC U
2. Watch Dogs
3. Wolfenstein NO
4. Shadow of Mordor
5. Ryse Son of Rome

And no doubt a ton of games I havent listed.

These are just a few. You can guarantee that GTA 5 and The Witcher 3 will also need over 3Gb.

It's a result of the next gen consoles. With their unified architecture which is different to PC.

4Gb is the new 2Gb.

Tonester0011 · 21 Dec 2014 at 17:42

I better tell my 3GB card it's playing games wrong, shouldn't be working at 1440 or 3840...
Anyway, here's a very quick search of those games where the 690 was being tested, look at those tanked minimums to indicate lack of VRAM :rolleyes:

Are you sure you need more than 2GB for 1080?

opethdisciple · 21 Dec 2014 at 17:46

Watch Dogs
Wolfenstein NO
Shadow of Mordor

Cant possibly be VHQ settings as you need more than 2Gb for the Textures.

Watch Dogs will stutter at those settings (in benchmark), Wolfenstein wont even let you select those settings due to vram detection and shadow of mordor also needs more than 3Gb for textures.

Unity I admit, I have no idea. I just assumed.

Tonester0011 · 21 Dec 2014 at 17:49

What you're now doing is moving the goal posts. Cards with 2GB tend to be less powerful than those that come with 4gb as standard, oh wait...yes...

Shock horror, these cards probably wont run the games at maximum settings LOL.
That's the problem with setting a random number for what's acceptable.

Let me go plug my 6GB GTX480 and play AC:U MAXED OUT!
As VRAM is all that's required to play games.

opethdisciple · 21 Dec 2014 at 17:52

Tonester0011 said:
What you're now doing is moving the goal posts. Cards with 2GB tend to be less powerful than those that come with 4gb as standard, oh wait...yes...

Shock horror, these cards probably wont run the games at maximum settings LOL.
That's the problem with setting a random number for what's acceptable.

Let me go plug my 6GB GTX480 and play AC:U MAXED OUT!
As VRAM is all that's required to play games.

Ok I see what you mean. But it was fairly obvious I was refering to running the game at max IQ settings.

Marine-RX179 · 21 Dec 2014 at 18:01

Tonester0011 said:
What you're now doing is moving the goal posts. Cards with 2GB tend to be less powerful than those that come with 4gb as standard, oh wait...yes...

Shock horror, these cards probably wont run the games at maximum settings LOL.
That's the problem with setting a random number for what's acceptable.

Let me go plug my 6GB GTX480 and play AC:U MAXED OUT!
As VRAM is all that's required to play games.

It's not just about maxing though. Shadow of Mordor need 3GB vram even for high, which cards such as 7970/280x would still be enough GPU grunt and vram, whereas the GTX680/GTX770 will have enough GPU grunt, but not enough vram...

Orangey · 21 Dec 2014 at 18:02

Simple min/avg charts don't show paging stutters.

Tonester0011 · 21 Dec 2014 at 18:08

You've mistaken me for actually caring, i don't.
I personally think 8GB is the minimum required. If we're setting minimum requirements, why settle for 4GB when 8GB cards have been about for ages.

All those people still running 2GB and 3GB cards shouldn't even be allowed to call themselves gamers, for they cannot run games at maximum details.

@Orangey
Go find the charts that prove otherwise, i spent <30 seconds searching for those charts.

@Marine
Check the blokes posts above yours, he's clearly on about Maxing.

ALEXAROTH · 21 Dec 2014 at 18:20

I don't see why people are praising this 290x. It's performance is on par and even under MSI GTX's 970 and Gigabyte 970

wazza300 · 21 Dec 2014 at 18:22

as with everything it pays to wait

Uncle Petey · 21 Dec 2014 at 18:23

Erm...

Marine-RX179 · 21 Dec 2014 at 18:26

Tonester0011 said:
@Marine
Check the blokes posts above yours, he's clearly on about Maxing.

I was talking about this in the general context.

To be honest I agree with the point which Orangey made about benchmark not necessarily be able to show stuttering.

I recall I use to play Crysis 1 on my overclocked 5850 1GB, and using 2xAA/4xAA would bring the frame rate down to like around 20-25fps from time to time...but it was until the last boss fight which the game became truly unplayable at that setting, with the vram maxed out and frame rate dropped all the way down to 0-1fps and stuttering so bad that I thought my PC was going to crash at any time. So basically had the benchmark been taken from anywhere but the last boss fight, or even the official Crysis Benchmark tool, it probably would not high-light the stuttering issue of the 5850 1GB running out of vram.