• 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.

What GPU should I get?

mattyjim123

mattyjim123

mattyjim123

Associate
Joined
5 Sep 2012
Posts
254
Hi guys,

I built my pc last November and since then i've been meaning to get myself a GPU to let me play all the latest games on medium to high graphics.

My current specs:

Asus P8Z77-V MoBo
Intel i5-3570K not overclocked (yet :P)
8GB Corsair Vengeance Ram

I have about £200 to spend, and preferably I want an Nvidia GPU.. Dunno why, its just one of those things like AMD or intel.

Thanks a bunch.
 
You're looking at a GTX760 for that kind of budget.

I would highly encourage you to consider the MSI R280X Gaming Edition at £230 though, it's only a bit over your budget but will run rings around the GTX760 for not a lot more.
 
280X is a direct competitor of the GTX770 isn't it. It should comfortably go beyond a 760 i would have thought
 
mattyjim123 said:
I've actually been thinking about that, how would that card compare to the "Asus GTX 760 Direct CU II 2GB GDDR5" card I've been looking at?
Click to expand...

Complete different league the 280X/7970Ghz than the GTX760.

It could be bit more close to compare the GTX760 against the 7950 and the 270X for stock performance.
Also consider that an overclocked 7950 @1050+ runs circles around a GTX760 @ 1280.

Given the prices of the R9 280X there is no boon not to get one over GTX760 to be honest. (even the GTX770 is not worth to get over a R9 280X)

And if you are at £230 and thinking not to overclock, strongly consider to spend £270 and get the R9 280X Toxic.
 
with consoles all having amd hardware, developers will be working a lot more with amd, plus they have mantle api. plus there cards are way better value for money. 280x all the way imo
 
jamiehavok said:
with consoles all having amd hardware, developers will be working a lot more with amd, plus they have mantle api. plus there cards are way better value for money. 280x all the way imo
Click to expand...

AMD having their GPUs in consoles will make very little difference and shouldn't be used as the basis for choosing a card.

AMD are better value for money if you are looking for price vs performance.
Mantle, again the same point really. Extra performance.

If however you want features like physx and G-sync then Nvidia is still a valid route to take. It would just be nice if they were competitive price wise.

If I was spending £230 right now I'd get the 280X, it's definitely priced at the point that it's hard to choose anything else.
 
no_1_dave said:
If however you want features like physx and G-sync then Nvidia is still a valid route to take. It would just be nice if they were competitive price wise.
Click to expand...


You still need a G-Sync monitor that there isn't any in the market until 2014. (and at what price?) And according to Nvidia if a game doesn't support it, it will be turned off.


I had only nvidia cards for the last 7 years, and I would take everything they say with a pinch of salt. And pointing to Physx which is 2005 tech but still only 40 games support it, (40 in 8 years!) and Vision 3D which while impressive (had it) you need some beefy card to play it. As for SLI, two months to provide support for Rome 2, while AMD has support for CF on 24h.
 
I've made my decision of buying the MSI Radeon R9 280X Gaming Edition, because of the many opinions that say there isn't a reason not to buy it at this price range.

Thanks for the many opinions guys, it really has helped!
 
Panos said:
You still need a G-Sync monitor that there isn't any in the market until 2014. (and at what price?) And according to Nvidia if a game doesn't support it, it will be turned off.


I had only nvidia cards for the last 7 years, and I would take everything they say with a pinch of salt. And pointing to Physx which is 2005 tech but still only 40 games support it, (40 in 8 years!) and Vision 3D which while impressive (had it) you need some beefy card to play it. As for SLI, two months to provide support for Rome 2, while AMD has support for CF on 24h.
Click to expand...

I will invest in a G-sync monitor if they do any 2560x1440 IPS ones :)

Yea, 40 games with hardware accelerated PhysX (477 use physx to a lesser extent), but some of them make a massive difference like Borderlands 2. I would happily swap 4 or 5 fps for some nice physx effects, so unless there is a big difference in price I'd still sway towards Nvidia at the moment. 65 fps or 60 fps and physx support. I won't notice those extra 5.

But, in the OPs scenario, he isn't fussed about that so the 280X is the best option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom