750w is enough. In fact it's enough for two graphics cards. But which model/brand are you getting?
Yeah it looks like your prices aren't quite as inflated as I had thought. You could get the 280X if you want. Over here a 770 is $330 and a 280X is $480.....yeah.
KazumiZorah Wrote:is this anything significant?
Not really. Current Nvidia cards support d3d11.1 and some features of 11.2. While AMD cards have full 11.2 support. Both of them support the features that game devs are likely to actually use. There are no games that make use of d3d 11.2 right now and there won't be for quite some time. Game devs might even skip over it and go straght to d3d12 like they did with d3d10.1. Both cards support OGL 4.3 and openCL 1.1. Only nvidia cards support CUDA and physx. A few games make use of physx to provide additional physical simulation effects and some apps make use of CUDA to use the gpu to speed up certain tasks not related to 3D rendering (video encoding or image editing for example). You're unlikely to use either. But CUDA can be useful for certain apps depending on what you plan on using the computer for.
KazumiZorah Wrote:EDIT 2: should have asked this earlier but how much should the 4670k OC on average to benefit Dolphin and what's a great air cooler to do it?
4.2/4.3GHz. Most aftermarket coolers can handle this. If you want to go the low budget minimalist route something like a cooler master hyper 212 evo ($35) will do the job well. If you want to go the high quality/cost route nothing beats noctua HSFs. The Noctua NH-D14 ($90) is unrivaled among air coolers in build quality and efficiency. You could also go the water cooling route if you want something that looks a bit more modern. Good closed loop AIO WCS (all-in-one water cooling system) can be had for $50-140 depending on the model from a number of reputable brands.
(03-05-2014, 06:57 AM)fringle Wrote: [ -> ]Just wanted to add. I'm running an EVGA GTX 770 and it's a good card. Runs very well in dolphin although my current CPU is holding me back (FX 6300@4.5ghz). Replacing that hopefully tomorrow with an i5 4670k and an MSI z87-GD65 Gaming I ordered. I plan on running that, 2 sata 7200 rpm drives and a solid state drive off a Seasonic 650watt PSU and it should run perfectly fine with watts to spare. 750 is overkill unless you plan on going SLI or Crossfire later.
For an Air cooler if you want cheap but good the cooler master hyper 212 is very popular. I had one but swapped it out for an AIO water cooler to cope with the heat of this overclocked AMD.
Which EVGA model do you have? 2gb or 4gb? I'm [a little] worried that 2gb of vram is "just enough" to play modern games at 1080p but will have me fucked if I go bigger or multi-monitor; not likely but not impossible. The 4gb one is 40eu more and overkill >_<. I'm ok with paying more to get a very good air cooler, i'll look into that.
I'll be ordering the parts in a week or so, hopefully i'd have made my mind up. Right now it's like this:
Gainward GeForce GTX 770 Phantom 4096MB (not 100%)
i5-4670K 3.40GHz
MSI Z87-G43 Gaming Series
Corsair RM Series RM 650 '80+ Gold' 650W (or the 750w version)
(03-05-2014, 07:44 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]But CUDA can be useful for certain apps depending on what you plan on using the computer for.
Thanks for the clarification by the way. I've only ever come across 1 application that used CUDA; media player classic (its LAV video filters specifically) used "CUVID" for hardware decoding but there was also DXVA2, the alternative for AMD cards. Doesn't AMD have a physx alternative?
(03-05-2014, 07:44 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]4.2/4.3GHz. Most aftermarket coolers can handle this. If you want to go the low budget minimalist route something like a cooler master hyper 212 evo ($35) will do the job well. If you want to go the high quality/cost route nothing beats noctua HSFs. The Noctua NH-D14 ($90) is unrivaled among air coolers in build quality and efficiency. You could also go the water cooling route if you want something that looks a bit more modern. Good closed loop AIO WCS (all-in-one water cooling system) can be had for $50-140 depending on the model from a number of reputable brands.
I'd certainly like a water cooling system somewhere down the line but right now it all depends on the total price. If the 212evo does the job well I'm happy with that.
KazumiZorah Wrote:Doesn't AMD have a physx alternative?
No.
There are however "open" physics engines that support using both AMD and nvidia GPUs for hardware acceleration. And they tend to be more popular than physx. Although even with these engines that have the option of doing so devs rarely make use of hardware accelerated physics. Physics engines are still mostly done on the CPU these days due to the greater flexibility. There are few games that use physx and most of them don't do anything special with it. So it shouldn't really factor into your purchase decision imo. I consider myself a bit biased towards nvidia and even I hope physx dies soon.
KazumiZorah Wrote:Which EVGA model do you have? 2gb or 4gb? I'm [a little] worried that 2gb of vram is "just enough" to play modern games at 1080p but will have me fucked if I go bigger or multi-monitor; not likely but not impossible. The 4gb one is 40eu more and overkill >_<. I'm ok with paying more to get a very good air cooler, i'll look into that.
As always "it depends on the game". Right now there are only a few games on the market that can use close to 2GB (not gb) of vram at 1080p. For the most part 4GB is only needed for running the most demanding games at absurd resolutions (4K UHD or triple monitor 1080p). 2GB is still enough for almost any situation in almost any game. But that may change in the near future with the xbone/ps4 having just been released which will push game devs to make higher quality art assets and game engines that use more vram.
(03-05-2014, 08:24 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]I consider myself a bit biased towards nvidia and even I hope physx dies soon.
Proprietary software in general doesn't go down well with me, I'm more of an open-source person but it ain't the best place for gaming. Something like physx seems particularly pointless too: only there for the sake of exclusivity, just another marketing strategy.
(03-05-2014, 08:24 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]As always "it depends on the game". Right now there are only a few games on the market that can use close to 2GB (not gb) of vram at 1080p. For the most part 4GB is only needed for running the most demanding games at absurd resolutions (4K UHD or triple monitor 1080p). 2GB is still enough for almost any situation in almost any game. But that may change in the near future with the xbone/ps4 having just been released which will push game devs to make higher quality art assets and game engines that use more vram.
Based on that, perhaps the 280X was the better choice, the 3GB vram one I mean. Room for improvement but not overkill.
I've got the GTX 770 Superclocked w/ACX cooler. It's a 2gb version and it's never let me down in a single game. Can turn up most settings to the max running it on a 23in LED at 1080p.
A) You seem to be in the UK if you're using OCUK. You may be able to shave quite a lot of money off if you buy from Scan instead, especially if you can drive to the shopping park near the Reebok in Bolton to pick everything up. The only issue I've ever had with them was actually MSI's fault, and other places had the same issue simultaneously.
B) The only thing you're likely to use CUDA for is if you take up Blender as a hobby. It's the whole reason I went for the green team for my current GPU.
C) Barely anything recent uses PhysX. All I can think of is Arkham City and Mirror's Edge, and they're not really considered new any more.
D) Until you hit silly resolutions (sometimes 3x 1080p, but usually much more) there is exactly zero difference in in-game performance between the 4GB and 2GB 770, with one exception. This exception is Skyrim with lots and lots of texture mods installed. As most of my gaming time is spent in Skyrim (and because my parents had declared my GPU to be a money-no-object-within-reason 18th birthday present) I decided the extra money for the 4GB card was worth it. There is, however, a slim chance that when new games start filling the PS4 and XBone's RAM with textures, a 4GB card will help in PC games, but given that these consoles bottleneck isn't really texture quality, this isn't so likely.
(03-05-2014, 11:04 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: [ -> ]A) You seem to be in the UK
Far from it. OCUK is the lowest price I can get computer hardware shipped to my country, the few decent local retailers are significantly more expensive even when considering shipping costs. That and ordering from half-way across the world is faster.
(03-05-2014, 11:04 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: [ -> ]D) Until you hit silly resolutions (sometimes 3x 1080p, but usually much more) there is exactly zero difference in in-game performance between the 4GB and 2GB 770, with one exception. This exception is Skyrim with lots and lots of texture mods installed. As most of my gaming time is spent in Skyrim (and because my parents had declared my GPU to be a money-no-object-within-reason 18th birthday present) I decided the extra money for the 4GB card was worth it. There is, however, a slim chance that when new games start filling the PS4 and XBone's RAM with textures, a 4GB card will help in PC games, but given that these consoles bottleneck isn't really texture quality, this isn't so likely.
I certainly will never be going that silly, not any time foreseeable. I spent my fair time on Skyrim before but it's unlikely I'll be touching it much, the charm wore off for me. Had a great deal of texture mods which made my 670 4GB sweat a little. I say the 280X 3GB is a nice sweet spot.
I'd have gone for the 280 myself if I hadn't prioritised Blender over DOGE mining. If you don't need the CUDA, it is the better choice.
I hardly know what blender and DOGE are but I don't have any use for them I know that much lol.