• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Upgrade GFX card

shotgunshand

shotgunshand

shotgunshand

Associate
Joined
22 May 2009
Posts
241
Location
Scotland
Hey folks,

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18708363

I posted this over on General hardware but thought I'd ask a specific GFX card question here.

My current card is a Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 6950 TOXIC 2048MB GDDR5. It was bought back in 2011 and I am looking to play Fallout 4 at some point so I need to upgrade this.

My current full spec is;

Coolermaster HAF X (+ 200mm fan, 80mm fan and 120mm fan)
Corsair A70 cpu cooler
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 6950 TOXIC 2048MB GDDR5 GFX Card
Intel Core i5-2500K 3.30GHz (Sandybridge) Socket LGA1155 Processor
Crucial RealSSD M4 128GB 2.5" SATA 6Gb/s Solid State Hard Drive
Asus P8Z68-V Intel Z68 (Socket 1155) DDR3 Motherboard
Corsair XMS3 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit (CMX8GX3M2A1600C9)
XFX P1-750S-NLB9 PRO750W Core Edition Power Supply
1TB Hard disc 7.2K

So I'm looking to upgrade the GPU but my life has been mental over the last few years so I'm totally out of touch with the current market. What would you recommend as a current card which would offer a substantial boost and let me run Fallout 4 at a respectable rate?
 
Budget - is the biggest thing if you're looking 200 then 380X like 240-250; I'd say 390......no real need to spend more than that.

What's your screen rez also that would make a different. If its 1080p; I'd say 380X would be a good fit....but if you want a little more power for a little more dosh; 390...

960 is over priced compaired to 380/380X - and slower and 970 good card; but honestly 390 is better......and AMD cards with drivers tend to age a whole lot better than Nvidia cards do.
 
meldarthx said:
970 good card; but honestly 390 is better......and AMD cards with drivers tend to age a whole lot better than Nvidia cards do.
Click to expand...

The benchmarks I've seen put the 970 and the 390 at very, very similar performance levels, hence why their price is identical most of the time.

And "age a whole lot better" bit misleading... They can get better with age, I.e. The drivers get better, but they don't necessarily last longer.

If 1080 is what you want then get a GTX 970 or a R9 390, they will get 60fps pretty much across the board. Base your choice on what software you want to use: GeForce Experience or Radeon Crimson.
 
The 6950 will still do work imo, though a 390 would be a substantial upgrade. If you haven't OC'ed your cpu though I'd look into that, Fallout 4 is very CPU-hungry.
 
Having owned a 970 and now owning a 980 and also a r9 390 i would suggest the 970 if gaming at 1080p

Its give or take the same power as a 390 but better drivers and software. I love the performance / value of the 390 but i have personally had so many issues with the drivers that im tempted to sell it on and get a 970/980 for that rig. However of course others claim it the other way around from their experience i can only say from mine.
 
Randall8686 said:
Its give or take the same power as a 390 but better drivers and software. I love the performance / value of the 390 but i have personally had so many issues with the drivers that im tempted to sell it on and get a 970/980 for that rig.
Click to expand...

The new Radeon Crimson software is meant to be quite good though, with similar features to the GeForce Experience software. Have you used it yet?
 
I'm currently gaming at 1080P on a 27'' screen. Probably need to upgrade my screen too to be honest.

Good news about the rest of the components.

As per a budget... well, I'm currently looking at the options. I don't game as much as I used to so I don't want to invest too much. I'm a Bethesda fan and pretty much play anytime they release a game. But I might start playing more now. Had a super stressful IT management job but I'm outta that now so I've got more free time again.

Currently looking at either investing in a current gen console or a new Gfx card. Kinda need a new monitor too as mines a 1080p 27'' Dell which is kinda small by today's standards.
 
Poneros said:
The 6950 will still do work imo, though a 390 would be a substantial upgrade. If you haven't OC'ed your cpu though I'd look into that, Fallout 4 is very CPU-hungry.
Click to expand...

I have overclocked my CPU but honestly cannot remember what rates I got out of it.

According the the fallout 4 min specs my card falls below. It's a good card and it's never struggled with anything I've thrown at it to date.
 
1080p at 27" is great for gaming, do not feel the need to upgrade. And if it is 60Hz then it walks all over what the current gen consoles have to offer haha

As for GPU and budget, I would pick from these based on how much you want to spend: R9 380, R9 380X or a GTX 970.

The 380 can do 1080p very well, but it is starting to fall behind with some newer releases, which is why I would reccommend the higher end cards, but a 380 would still serve you well :)
 
Insanties_birth said:
390 is the better card overall quite clearly, unless willing to waste the money on 980 which as stated is a bit of a waste since it doesn't get enough extra performance to justify the price.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no.

The R9 390 and the GTX 970 are very similar in performance, either can expect a small fps gain on the other in different games, it is pretty negligible.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/86927-sapphire-r9-390-nitro/?page=9

This shows FPS to be pretty similar in most cases. Shadow of Mordor is better with the R9 390, but GTAV, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3 and Total War: Rome II show higher FPS for the GTX 970.
 
Frank Jeagar said:
Yeah, no.

The R9 390 and the GTX 970 are very similar in performance, either can expect a small fps gain on the other in different games, it is pretty negligible.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/86927-sapphire-r9-390-nitro/?page=9

This shows FPS to be pretty similar in most cases. Shadow of Mordor is better with the R9 390, but GTAV, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3 and Total War: Rome II show higher FPS for the GTX 970.
Click to expand...

again those are within margin of error ;) Honestly 390 compaired to 970; the 390 is over all the better card; it will handle higher resolutions better; it will handle DX 12 better as with A compute; where as 970 can't handle that as well.

plus 390 usually priced slightly less than 970

PCS+ is at 229; while cheapest 970 is 249.

that's just at OC. PCS+ is an awesome cooler. As you said pretty much performance is about a wash in most cases at 1080p; soon as you move the 1440p 390 pulls away. With it also cheaper. No contest :) 390 has taken over as price king to performance.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-amd-radeon-r9-390-8gb-review



 
meldarthx said:
again those are within margin of error ;) Honestly 390 compaired to 970; the 390 is over all the better card; it will handle higher resolutions better; it will handle DX 12 better as with A compute; where as 970 can't handle that as well.

plus 390 usually priced slightly less than 970

PCS+ is at 229; while cheapest 970 is 249.
Click to expand...

Except from the benchmarks don't support the idea of the R9 390 being better than the 970, and the idea that higher VRAM means it will do better in higher resolutions isn't really relavent considering 3.5Gb of VRAM is more than enough. Witcher 3 on 4k utilises a little over 2Gb.

The only reason that PowerColor 390 is £229 is because it is on offer, it is normally priced at £249... The same as the cheapest 970. You might also notice that the MSI Twin Frozr and Asus Strix versions of these two cards are also identical in price. They cost the same.

As for the free game, you get free games with either card.
 
Frank Jeagar said:
The new Radeon Crimson software is meant to be quite good though, with similar features to the GeForce Experience software. Have you used it yet?
Click to expand...

Certainly have, Its miles better interface than the old catalyst (i have a rig with a 390 in it see sig) BUT the drivers are not as slick as nvidia's yet. I have been having problems with Crimson but have with a lot of messing about got it stable ish. I have got my first AMD card for a number of years after my last 4 cards being nvidia and they are Miles better than they used to be but its just not as slick as nvidia's setup. also in certain games like GTA V my 980 runs rings round the 390 by about 20 fps setting for setting. (ok there is a i7 vs i5) but given neither of them are in any way a bottle neck 90% of that difference is down to the GPU.

The nvidia is a premium price but imo im happy to spend the extra to have the easier life.
 
Thing is, VRAM does matter, maybe not as much today in most titles but if you ever mod you'd know what I'm talking about, not to mention there are many cases (e.g. higher texture packs) where you can great better graphical fidelity with minimal performance impact but DO require more than 4gb. Plus, unless you are gonna sell it as soon as the next gen arrives how can you not want more vram just in case? Witcher low vram usage is the exception not the norm and I can give plenty of counter-examples where the opposite is true, e.g. GTA V, Dying Light, Project Cars (DS2X mode), Black Ops 3 etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom